Thanksâyep I think this is becoming a bit of an issue (it came up a couple times in the symposium as well). I might edit the footnote to clarifyâworlds with morally valuable digital minds should be included as a non-extinction scenario, but worlds where an AI which could be called âintelligent lifeâ but isnât conscious/â morally valuable takes over and humans become extinct should count as an extinction scenario.
Ughh ⊠baking judgements about whatâs morally valuable into the question somehow doesnât seem ideal. Like I think itâs an OK way to go for moral ~realists, but among anti-realists you might have people persistently disagreeing about what counts as extinction.
Also like: what if you have a world which is like the one you describe as an extinction scenario, but thereâs a small amount of moral value in some subcomponent of that AI system. Does that mean it no longer counts as an extinction scenario?
Iâd kind of propose instead using the typology Will proposed here, and making the debate between (1) + (4) on the one hand vs (2) + (3) on the other.
Thanksâyep I think this is becoming a bit of an issue (it came up a couple times in the symposium as well). I might edit the footnote to clarifyâworlds with morally valuable digital minds should be included as a non-extinction scenario, but worlds where an AI which could be called âintelligent lifeâ but isnât conscious/â morally valuable takes over and humans become extinct should count as an extinction scenario.
Ughh ⊠baking judgements about whatâs morally valuable into the question somehow doesnât seem ideal. Like I think itâs an OK way to go for moral ~realists, but among anti-realists you might have people persistently disagreeing about what counts as extinction.
Also like: what if you have a world which is like the one you describe as an extinction scenario, but thereâs a small amount of moral value in some subcomponent of that AI system. Does that mean it no longer counts as an extinction scenario?
Iâd kind of propose instead using the typology Will proposed here, and making the debate between (1) + (4) on the one hand vs (2) + (3) on the other.