Yeah, I find some of Baumannâs examples plausible, but in order for the future to be net negative we donât just need some examples, we need the majority of computation to be suffering.[1]
I donât think Baumann is trying to argue for that in the linked pieces (or if they are, I donât find it terribly compelling); I would be interested in more research looking into this.
I do not mean to argue that the future will be net negative. (I even make this disclaimer twice in the post, aha.) :)
I simply argue that the convergence between efficiency and methods that involve less suffering argument in favor of assuming itâll be positive is unsupported.
There are many other arguments/âconsiderations to take into account to assess the sign of the future.
Ah yeah sorry, what I said wasnât precise; I mean that is not enough to show that there exists one instance of suffering being instrumentally useful, you have to show that this is true in general.
If I want to prove that technological progress generally correlates with methods that involve more suffering, yes! Agreed.
But while the post suggests that this is a possibility, its main point is that suffering itself is not inefficient, such that there is no reason to expect progress and methods that involve less suffering to correlate by default (much weaker claim).
This makes me realize that the crux is perhaps this below part more than the claim we discuss above.
While I tentatively think the âthe most efficient solutions to problems donât seem like they involve sufferingâ claimis true if we limit ourselves to the present and the past, I think it is false once we consider the long-term future, which makes the argument break apart.
Future solutions are more efficient insofar as they overcome past limitations. In the relevant examples that are enslaved humans and exploited animals, suffering itself is not a limiting factor. It is rather the physical limitations of those biological beings, relative to machines that could do a better job at their tasks.
I donât see any inevitable dependence between their suffering and these physical limitations. If human slaves and exploited animals were not sentient, this wouldnât change the fact that machines would do a better job.
Sorry for the confusion and thanks for pushing back! Helps me clarify what the claims made in this post imply and donât imply. :)
Yeah, I find some of Baumannâs examples plausible, but in order for the future to be net negative we donât just need some examples, we need the majority of computation to be suffering.[1]
I donât think Baumann is trying to argue for that in the linked pieces (or if they are, I donât find it terribly compelling); I would be interested in more research looking into this.
Or maybe the vast majority to be suffering. See e.g. this comment from Paul Christiano about how altruists may have outsized impact in the future.
I do not mean to argue that the future will be net negative. (I even make this disclaimer twice in the post, aha.) :)
I simply argue that the convergence between efficiency and methods that involve less suffering argument in favor of assuming itâll be positive is unsupported.
There are many other arguments/âconsiderations to take into account to assess the sign of the future.
Ah yeah sorry, what I said wasnât precise; I mean that is not enough to show that there exists one instance of suffering being instrumentally useful, you have to show that this is true in general.
(Unless I misunderstood your post?)
If I want to prove that technological progress generally correlates with methods that involve more suffering, yes! Agreed.
But while the post suggests that this is a possibility, its main point is that suffering itself is not inefficient, such that there is no reason to expect progress and methods that involve less suffering to correlate by default (much weaker claim).
This makes me realize that the crux is perhaps this below part more than the claim we discuss above.
Sorry for the confusion and thanks for pushing back! Helps me clarify what the claims made in this post imply and donât imply. :)