I think we could characterise this not as ādeviating from the concept of attractor statesā, but as highlighting that the best actions to take for improving the long-term future wonāt necessarily focus on existential catastrophes or even any form of attractor state. [Update: I now think this comment was misleading/āinaccurate, for the reason dwebb points out in a reply.]
I.e., not as arguing against ultimately focusing on attractor states, but as arguing against focusing on them without even considering alternatives
But note that this post predates the āattractor statesā concept, so the above is something Iām reading into the post rather than something the post directly says
I think this is a really good post
Maybe you (Jack) already read this and had it in mind
I hadnāt seen this post before, but to me it sounds like Becksteadās arguments are very much in line with the idea of attractor states, rather than deviating from it. A path-dependent trajectory change is roughly the same as moving from one attractor state to another, if Iāve understood correctly.
The argument he is making is that extinction /ā existential risks are not the only form of attractor state, which I agree with.
Whoops, yeah, having just re-skimmed the post, I now think that your comment is a more accurate portrayal of Becksteadās
post than mine was. Hereās a key quote from that post:
Bostrom does have arguments that speeding up development and providing proximate benefits are not as important, in themselves, as reducing existential risk. And these arguments, I believe, have some plausibility. Since we donāt have an argument that reducing existential risk is better than trying to create other positive [path dependent] trajectory changes and an existential catastrophe is one type of [path dependent] trajectory change, it seems more reasonable for defenders of the astronomical waste argument to focus on [path dependent] trajectory changes in general.
A relevant Beckstead post is A Proposed Adjustment to the Astronomical Waste Argument
I think we could characterise this not as ādeviating from the concept of attractor statesā, but as highlighting that the best actions to take for improving the long-term future wonāt necessarily focus on existential catastrophes or even any form of attractor state. [Update: I now think this comment was misleading/āinaccurate, for the reason dwebb points out in a reply.]
I.e., not as arguing against ultimately focusing on attractor states, but as arguing against focusing on them without even considering alternatives
But note that this post predates the āattractor statesā concept, so the above is something Iām reading into the post rather than something the post directly says
I think this is a really good post
Maybe you (Jack) already read this and had it in mind
I hadnāt seen this post before, but to me it sounds like Becksteadās arguments are very much in line with the idea of attractor states, rather than deviating from it. A path-dependent trajectory change is roughly the same as moving from one attractor state to another, if Iāve understood correctly.
The argument he is making is that extinction /ā existential risks are not the only form of attractor state, which I agree with.
Whoops, yeah, having just re-skimmed the post, I now think that your comment is a more accurate portrayal of Becksteadās post than mine was. Hereās a key quote from that post:
I havenāt read that post but will definitely have a look, thanks.