First a clarification: I’m actually fairly uncertain about whether the experiences of wild animals are net- negative, but if I had to choose I would predict net-negative. I added an edit to clarify that in the main text!
would you stand by reducing it to something close to but below 1 not being “AGI went well for animals”?
That’s a great question. I was struggling with how to operationalize the definition of “going well” for animals, while still maintaining empirical (and moral) uncertainty about the current state of affairs. I think it would certainly be a good thing if the ratio increased drastically (all else equal), irrespective of whether the ratio passed 1 or not. But I don’t think I would describe it as “going well” for animals in that scenario, if the ratio would still be below 1? I’m not sure, I would have to think about this some more.
First a clarification: I’m actually fairly uncertain about whether the experiences of wild animals are net- negative, but if I had to choose I would predict net-negative. I added an edit to clarify that in the main text!
That’s a great question. I was struggling with how to operationalize the definition of “going well” for animals, while still maintaining empirical (and moral) uncertainty about the current state of affairs. I think it would certainly be a good thing if the ratio increased drastically (all else equal), irrespective of whether the ratio passed 1 or not. But I don’t think I would describe it as “going well” for animals in that scenario, if the ratio would still be below 1? I’m not sure, I would have to think about this some more.
Fair, the semantics of “going well” ultimately don’t matter so I think this is clear.