Matthew_Barnett

Karma: 4,226

Matthew_Barnett Feb 17, 2025, 6:54 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Neel Nanda’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
Thanks for clarifying—if I understand correctly, you think that it’s reasonable to assert that sentience and preferences are what makes an entity morally meaningful, but that anything more specific is not?
I don’t think there’s any moral view that’s objectively more “reasonable” than any other moral view (as I’m a moral anti-realist). However, I personally don’t have a significant moral preference for humans beyond the fact that I am partial to my family, friends, and a lot of other people who are currently alive. When I think about potential future generations who don’t exist yet, I tend to adopt a more impartial, utilitarian framework.
In other words, my moral views can be summarized as a combination of personal attachments and broader utilitarian moral concerns. My personal attachments are not impartial: for example, I care about my family more than I care about random strangers. However, beyond my personal attachments, I tend to take an impartial utilitarian approach that doesn’t assign any special value to the human species.
In other words, to the extent I care about humans specifically, this concern merely arises from the fact that I’m attached to some currently living individuals who happen to be human—rather than because I think the human species is particularly important.
Does that make sense?
But in that case, it’s highly non obvious to me that AIs will have sentience or preferences in ways that I consider meaningful—this seems like an open philosophical question. Defining actually what they are also seems like an open question to me—does a thermostat have preferences?
I agree this is an open question, but I think it’s much clearer that future AIs will have complex and meaningful preferences compared to a thermostat or a plant. I think we can actually be pretty confident about this prediction given the strong economic pressures that will push AIs towards being person-like and agentic. (Note, however, that I’m not making a strong claim here that all AIs will be moral patients in the future. It’s sufficient for my argument if merely a large number of them are.)
In fact, a lot of arguments for AI risk rest on the premise that AI agents will exist in the future, and that they’ll have certain preferences (at least in a functional sense). If we were to learn that future AIs won’t have preferences, that would both undermine these arguments for AI risk, and many of my moral arguments for valuing AIs. Therefore, to the extent you think AIs will lack the cognitive prerequisites for moral patienthood—under my functionalist and preference utilitarian views—this doesn’t necessarily translate into a stronger case for worrying about AI takeover.
However, I want to note that the view I have just described is actually broader than the thesis I gave in the post. If you read my post carefully, you’ll see that I actually hedged quite a bit by saying that there are potential, logically consistent utilitarian arguments that could be made in favor of pausing AI. My thesis in the post was not that such an argument couldn’t be given. It was actually a fairly narrow thesis, and I didn’t make a strong claim that AI-controlled futures would create about as much utilitarian moral value as human-controlled futures in expectation (even though I personally think this claim is plausible).

Matthew_Barnett Feb 17, 2025, 6:21 AM
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Neel Nanda’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
I’m not super sure what you mean by individualistic. I was modelling this as utilitarian but assigning literally zero value to future people. From a purely selfish perspective, I’m in my mid-20s and my chances of dying from natural causes in the next say 20 years are pretty damn low, and this means that given my background beliefs about doom and timelines, slowing down AI is great deal from my perspective. While if I expected to die from old age in the next 5 years I would be a lot more opposed
A typical 25 year old man in the United States has around a 4.3% chance of dying before they turn 45 according to these actuarial statistics from 2019 (the most recent non-pandemic year in the data). I wouldn’t exactly call that “pretty damn low”, though opinions on these things differ. This is comparable to my personal credence that AIs will kill me in the next 20 years. And if AI goes well, it will probably make life really awesome. So from this narrowly selfish point of view I’m still not really convinced pausing is worth it.
Perhaps more importantly: do you not have any old family members that you care about?

Matthew_Barnett Feb 15, 2025, 1:00 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Neel Nanda’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
I’m not talking about “arbitrary AI entities” in this context, but instead, the AI entities who will actually exist in the future, who will presumably be shaped by our training data, as well as our training methods. From this perspective, it’s not clear to me that your claim is true. But even if your claim is true, I was actually making a different point. My point was instead that it isn’t clear that future generations of AIs would be much worse than future generations of humans from an impartial utilitarian point of view.
(That said, it sounds like the real crux between us might instead be about whether pausing AI would be very costly to people who currently exist. If indeed you disagree with me about this point, I’d prefer you reply to my other comment rather than replying to this one, as I perceive that discussion as likely to be more productive.)

Matthew_Barnett Feb 15, 2025, 12:04 AM
14 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Neel Nanda’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
Huh? This argument only goes through if you have a sufficiently low probability of existential risk or an extremely low change in your probability of existential risk, conditioned on things moving slower.
This claim seems false, though its truth hinges on what exactly you mean by a “sufficiently low probability of existential risk” and “an extremely low change in your probability of existential risk”.
To illustrate why I think your claim is false, I’ll perform a quick calculation. I don’t know your p(doom), but in a post from three years ago, you stated,
If you believe the key claims of “there is a >=1% chance of AI causing x-risk and >=0.1% chance of bio causing x-risk in my lifetime” this is enough to justify the core action relevant points of EA.
Let’s assume that there’s a 2% chance of AI causing existential risk, and that, optimistically, pausing for a decade would cut this risk in half (rather than barely decreasing it, or even increasing it). This would imply that the total risk would diminish from 2% to 1%.
According to OWID, approximately 63 million people die every year, although this rate is expected to increase, rising to around 74 million in 2035. If we assume that around 68 million people will die per year during the relevant time period, and that they could have been saved by AI-enabled medical progress, then pausing AI for a decade would kill around 680 million people.
This figure is around 8.3% of the current global population, and would constitute a death count higher than the combined death toll from World War 1, World War 2, the Mongol Conquests, the Taiping rebellion, the Transition from Ming to Qing, and the Three Kingdoms Civil war.
(Note that, although we are counting deaths from old age in this case, these deaths are comparable to deaths in war from a years of life lost perspective, if you assume that AI-accelerated medical breakthroughs will likely greatly increase human lifespan.)
From the perspective of an individual human life, a 1% chance of death from AI is significantly lower than a 8.3% chance of death from aging—though obviously in the former case this risk would apply independently of age, and in the latter case, the risk would be concentrated heavily among people who are currently elderly.
Even a briefer pause lasting just two years, while still cutting risk in half, would not survive this basic cost-benefit test. Of course, it’s true that it’s difficult to directly compare the individual personal costs from AI existential risk to the diseases of old age. For example, AI existential risk has the potential to be briefer and less agonizing, which, all else being equal, should push us to favor it. On the other hand, most people might consider death from old age to be preferable since it’s more natural and allows the human species to continue.
Nonetheless, despite these nuances, I think the basic picture that I’m presenting holds up here: under typical assumptions (such as the ones you gave three years ago), a purely individualistic framing of the costs and benefits of AI pause do not clearly favor pausing, from the perspective of people who currently exist. This fact was noted in Nick Bostrom’s original essay on Astronomical Waste, and more recently, by Chad Jones in his paper on the tradeoffs involved in stopping AI development.
What links here?
- Matthew_Barnett's comment on Simplify EA Pitches to “Holy Shit, X-Risk” by Neel Nanda (Apr 23, 2025, 8:14 PM; 6 points)

Matthew_Barnett Feb 14, 2025, 10:31 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Neel Nanda’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
For your broader point of impartiality, I feel like you are continuing to assume some bizarre form of moral realism and I don’t understand the case. Otherwise, why do you not consider rocks to be morally meaningful? Why is a plant not valuable?
Traditionally, utilitarianism regards these things (rocks and plants) as lacking moral value because they do not have well-being or preferences. This principle does not clearly apply to AI, though it’s possible that you are making the assumption that future AIs will lack sentience or meaningful preferences. It would be helpful if you clarified how you perceive me to be assuming a form of moral realism (a meta-ethical theory), as I simply view myself as applying a standard utilitarian framework (a normative theory).
I do not understand the philosophical position you are taking here—it feels like you’re saying that the standard position is speciesist and arbitrary and then drawing an arbitrary distinction slightly further out?
Standard utilitarianism recognizes both morally relevant and morally irrelevant distinctions in value. According to a long tradition, following Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, among others, the species category is considered morally irrelevant, whereas sentience and/or preferences are considered morally relevant. I do not think this philosophy rests on the premise of moral realism: rather, it’s a conceptual framework for understanding morality, whether from a moral realist or anti-realist point of view.
To be clear, I agree that utilitarianism is itself arbitrary, from a sufficiently neutral point of view. But it’s also a fairly standard ethical framework, not just in EA but in academic philosophy too. I don’t think I’m making very unusual assumptions here.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 14, 2025, 2:37 AM
6 points
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: Lukas_Gloor’s comment on: Matthew_Barnett’s Shortform
In your comment, you raise a broad but important question about whether, even if we reject the idea that human survival must take absolute priority other concerns, we might still want to pause AI development in order to “set up” future AIs more thoughtfully. You list a range of traits—things like pro-social instincts, better coordination infrastructures, or other design features that might improve cooperation—that, in principle, we could try to incorporate if we took more time. I understand and agree with the motivation behind this: you are asking whether there is a prudential reason, from a more inclusive moral standpoint, to pause in order to ensure that whichever civilization emerges—whether dominated by humans, AIs, or both at once—turns out as well as possible in ways that matter impartially, rather than focusing narrowly on preserving human dominance.
Having summarized your perspective, I want to clarify exactly where I differ from your view, and why.
First, let me restate the perspective I defended in my previous post on delaying AI. In that post, I was critiquing what I see as the “standard case” for pausing AI, as I perceive it being made in many EA circles. This standard case for pausing AI often treats preventing human extinction as so paramount that any delay of AI progress, no matter how costly to currently living people, becomes justified if it incrementally lowers the probability of humans losing control.
Under this argument, the reason we want to pause is that time spent on “alignment research” can be used to ensure that future AIs share human goals, or at least do not threaten the human species. My critique had two components: first, I argued that pausing AI is very costly to people who currently exist, since it delays medical and technological breakthroughs that could be made by advanced AIs, thereby forcing a lot of people to die who could have otherwise been saved. Second, and more fundamentally, I argued that this “standard case” seems to rest on an assumption of strictly prioritizing human continuity, independent of whether future AIs might actually generate utilitarian moral value in a way that matches or exceeds humanity.
I certainly acknowledge that one could propose a different rationale for pausing AI, one which does not rest on the premise that preserving the human species is intrinsically worth more than than other moral priorities. This is, it seems, the position you are taking.
Nonetheless, I don’t find your considerations compelling for a variety of reasons.
To begin with, it might seem that granting ourselves “more time” robustly ensures that AIs come out morally better—pro-social, cooperative, and so on. Yet the connection between “getting more time” to “achieving positive outcomes” does not seem straightforward. Merely taking more time does not ensure that this time will be used to increase, rather than decrease, the relevant quality of AI systems according to an impartial moral view. Alignment with human interests, for example, could just as easily push systems in directions that entrench specific biases, maintain existing social structures, or limit moral diversity—none of which strongly aligns with the “pro-social” ideals you described. In my view, there is no inherent link between a slower timeline and ensuring that AIs end up embodying genuinely virtuous or impartial ethical principles. Indeed, if what we call “human control” is mainly about enforcing the status quo or entrenching the dominance of the human species, it may be no better—and could even be worse—than a scenario in which AI development proceeds at the default pace, potentially allowing for more diversity and freedom in how systems are shaped.
Furthermore, in my own moral framework—which is heavily influenced by preference utilitarianism—I take seriously the well-being of everyone who currently exists in the present. As I mentioned previously, one major cost to pausing AI is that it would likely postpone many technological benefits. These might include breakthroughs in medicine—potential cures for aging, radical extensions of healthy lifespans, or other dramatic increases to human welfare that advanced AI could accelerate. We should not simply dismiss the scale of that cost. The usual EA argument for downplaying these costs rests on the Astronomical Waste argument. However, I find this argument flawed, and I spelled out exactly why I found this argument flawed in the post I just wrote.
If a pause sets back major medical discoveries by even a decade, that delay could contribute to the premature deaths of around a billion people alive today. It seems to me that an argument in favor of pausing should grapple with this tradeoff, instead of dismissing it as clearly unimportant compared to the potential human lives that could maybe exist in the far future. Such a dismissal would seem both divorced from common sense concern for existing people, and divorced from broader impartial utilitarian values, as it would prioritize the continuity of the human species above and beyond species-neutral concerns for individual well-being.
Finally, I take very seriously the possibility that pausing AI would cause immense and enduring harm by requiring the creation of vast regulatory controls over society. Realistically, the political mechanisms by which we “pause” advanced AI development would likely involve a lot of coercion, surveillance and social control, particularly as AI starts becoming an integral part of our economy. These efforts are likely to expand state regulatory powers, hamper open competition, and open the door to a massive intrusion of state interference in economic and social activity. I believe these controls would likely be far more burdensome and costly than, for example, our controls over nuclear weapons. If our top long-term priority is building a more free, prosperous, inclusive, joyous, and open society for everyone, rather than merely to control and stop AI, then it seems highly questionable that creating the policing powers required to pause AI is the best way to achieve this objective.
As I see it, the core difference between the view you outlined and mine is not that I am ignoring the possibility that we might “do better” by carefully shaping the environment in which AIs arise. I concede that if we had a guaranteed mechanism to spend a known, short period of time intentionally optimizing how AIs are built, without imposing any other costs in the meantime, that might bring some benefits. However, my skepticism flows from the actual methods by which such a pause would come about, its unintended consequences on liberty, the immediate harms it imposes on present-day people by delaying technological progress, and the fact that it might simply entrench a narrower or more species-centric approach that I explicitly reject. It is not enough to claim that “pausing gives us more time”, suggesting that “more time” is robustly a good thing. One must argue why that time will be spent well, in a way that outweighs the enormous and varied costs that I believe are incurred by pausing AI.
To be clear, I am not opposed to all forms of regulation. But I tend to prefer more liberal approaches, in the sense of classical liberalism. I prefer strategies that try to invite AIs into a cooperative framework, giving them legal rights and a path to peaceful integration—coupled, of course, with constraints on any actor (human or AI) who threatens to commit violence. This, in my view, simply seems like a far stronger foundation for AI policy than a stricter top-down approach in which we halt all frontier AI progress, and establish the associated sweeping regulatory powers required to enforce such a moratorium.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 13, 2025, 8:30 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 2
in reply to: Habryka [Deactivated]’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
Let’s define “shumanity” as the set of all humans who are currently alive. Under this definition, every living person today is a “shuman,” but our future children may not be, since they do not yet exist. Now, let’s define “humanity” as the set of all humans who could ever exist, including future generations. Under this broader definition, both we and our future children are part of humanity.
If all currently living humans (shumanity) were to die, this would be a catastrophic loss from the perspective of shuman values—the values held by the people who are alive today. However, it would not necessarily be a catastrophic loss from the perspective of human values—the values of humanity as a whole, across time. This distinction is crucial. In the normal course of events, every generation eventually grows old, dies, and is replaced by the next. When this happens, shumanity, as defined, ceases to exist, and as such, shuman values are lost. However, humanity continues, carried forward by the new generation. Thus, human values are preserved, but not shuman values.
Now, consider this in the context of AI. Would the extinction of shumanity by AIs be much worse than the natural generational cycle of human replacement? In my view, it is not obvious that being replaced by AIs would be much worse than being replaced by future generations of humans. Both scenarios involve the complete loss of the individual values held by currently living people, which is undeniably a major loss. To be very clear, I am not saying that it would be fine if everyone died. But in both cases, something new takes our place, continuing some form of value, mitigating part of the loss. This is the same perspective I apply to AI: its rise might not necessarily be far worse than the inevitable generational turnover of humans, which equally involves everyone dying (which I see as a bad thing!). Maybe “human values” would die in this scenario, but this would not necessarily entail the end of the broader concept of impartial utilitarian value. This is precisely my point.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 13, 2025, 8:01 PM
4 points
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: Neel Nanda’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
I don’t subscribe to moral realism. My own ethical outlook is a blend of personal attachments—my own life, my family, my friends, and other living humans—as well as a broader utilitarian concern for overall well-being. In this post, I focused on impartial utilitarianism because that’s the framework most often used by effective altruists.
However, to the extent that I also have non-utilitarian concerns (like caring about specific people I know), those concerns incline me away from supporting a pause on AI. If AI can accelerate technologies that save and improve the lives of people who exist right now, then slowing it down would cost lives in the near term. A more complete, and more rigorous version of this argument was outlined in the post.
What I find confusing about other EA’s views, including yours, is why we would assign such great importance to “human values” as something specifically tied to the human species as an abstract concept, rather than merely being partial to actual individuals who exist. This perspective is neither utilitarian, nor is it individualistic. It seems to value the concept of the human species over and above the actual individuals that comprise the species, much like how an ideological nationalist might view the survival of their nation as more important than the welfare of all the individuals who actually reside within the nation.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 13, 2025, 7:44 PM
16 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: David Mathers🔸’s comment on: Matthew_Barnett’s Shortform
I realize my position can be confusing, so let me clarify it as plainly as I can: I do not regard the extinction of humanity as anything close to “fine.” In fact, I think it would be a devastating tragedy if every human being died. I have repeatedly emphasized that a major upside of advanced AI lies in its potential to accelerate medical breakthroughs—breakthroughs that might save countless human lives, including potentially my own. Clearly, I value human lives, as otherwise I would not have made this particular point so frequently.
What seems to cause confusion is that I also argue the following more subtle point: while human extinction would be unbelievably bad, it would likely not be astronomically bad in the strict sense used by the “astronomical waste” argument. The standard “astronomical waste” argument says that if humanity disappears, then all possibility for a valuable, advanced civilization vanishes forever. But in a scenario where humans die out because of AI, civilization would continue—just not with humans. That means a valuable intergalactic civilization could still arise, populated by AI rather than by humans. From a purely utilitarian perspective that counts the existence of a future civilization as extremely valuable—whether human or AI—this difference lowers the cataclysm from “astronomically, supremely, world-endingly awful” to “still incredibly awful, but not on a cosmic scale.”
In other words, my position remains that human extinction is very bad indeed—it entails the loss of eight billion individual human lives, which would be horrifying. I don’t want to be forcibly replaced by an AI. Nor do I want you, or anyone else to be forcibly replaced by an AI. I am simply pushing back on the idea that such an event would constitute the absolute destruction of all future value in the universe. There is a meaningful distinction between “an unimaginable tragedy we should try very hard to avoid” and “a total collapse of all potential for a flourishing future civilization of any kind.” My stance falls firmly in the former category.
This distinction is essential to my argument because it fundamentally shapes how we evaluate trade-offs, particularly when considering policies that aim to slow or restrict AI research. If we assume that human extinction due to AI would erase all future value, then virtually any present-day sacrifice—no matter how extreme—might seem justified to reduce that risk. However, if advanced AI could continue to sustain its own value-generating civilization, even in the absence of humans, then extinction would not represent the absolute end of valuable life. While this scenario would be catastrophic for humanity, attempting to avoid it might not outweigh certain immediate benefits of AI, such as its potential to save lives through advanced technology.
In other words, there could easily be situations where accelerating AI development—rather than pausing it—ends up being the better choice for saving human lives, even if doing so technically slightly increases the risk of human species extinction. This does not mean we should be indifferent to extinction; rather, it means we should stop treating extinction as a near-infinitely overriding concern, where even the smallest reduction in its probability is always worth immense near-term costs to actual people living today.
For a moment, I’d like to reverse the criticism you leveled at me. From where I stand, it is often those who strongly advocate pausing AI development, not myself, who can appear to undervalue the lives of humans. I know they don’t see themselves this way, and they would certainly never phrase it in those terms. Nevertheless, this is my reading of the deeper implications of their position.
A common proposition that many AI pause advocates have affirmed to me is that it very well could be worth it to pause AI, even if this led to billions of humans dying prematurely due to them missing out on accelerated medical progress that could otherwise have saved their lives. Therefore, while these advocates care deeply about human extinction (something I do not deny), their concern does not seem rooted in the intrinsic worth of the people who are alive today. Instead, their primary focus often seems to be on the loss of potential future human lives that could maybe exist in the far future—lives that do not yet even exist, and on my view, are unlikely to exist in the far future in basically any scenario, since humanity is unlikely to be preserved as a fixed, static concept over the long-run.
In my view, this philosophy neither prioritizes the well-being of actual individuals nor is it grounded in the utilitarian value that humanity actively generates. If this philosophy were purely about impartial utilitarian value, then I ask: why are they not more open to my perspective? Since my philosophy takes an impartial utilitarian approach—one that considers not just human-generated value, but also the potential value that AI itself could create—it would seem to appeal to those who simply took a strict utilitarian approach, without discriminating against artificial life arbitrarily. Yet, my philosophy largely does not appeal to those who express this view, suggesting the presence of alternative, non-utilitarian concerns.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 13, 2025, 4:34 AM
9 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Habryka [Deactivated]’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
I think your response largely assumes a human-species-centered viewpoint, rather than engaging with my critique that is precisely aimed at re-evaluating this very point of view.
You say, “AIs will probably not care about the same things, so the universe will be worse by our lights if controlled by AI.” But what are “our lights” and “our values” in this context? Are you referring to the values of me as an individual, the current generation of humans, or humanity as a broad, ongoing species-category? These are distinct—and often conflicting—sets of values, preferences, and priorities. It’s possible, indeed probable, that I, personally, have preferences that differ fundamentally from the majority of humans. “My values” are not the same as “our values”.
When you talk about whether an AI civilization is “better” or “worse,” it’s crucial to clarify what perspective we’re measuring that from. If, from the outset, we assume that human values, or the survival of humanity-as-a-species, is the critical factor that determines whether an AI civilization is better or worse than our own, that effectively begs the question. It merely assumes what I aim to challenge. From a more impartial standpoint, the mere fact that AI might not care about the exact same things humans do doesn’t necessarily entail a decrease in total impartial moral value—unless we’ve already decided in advance that human values are inherently more important.
(To make this point clearer, perhaps replace all mentions of “human values” with “North American values” in the standard arguments about these issues, and see if it makes these arguments sound like they privilege an arbitrary category of beings.)
While it’s valid to personally value the continuation of the human species, or the preservation of human values, as a moral preference above other priorities, my point is simply that that’s precisely the species-centric assumption I’m highlighting, rather than a distinct argument that undermines my observations or analysis. Such a perspective is not substrate or species-neutral. Nor is it obviously mandated by a strictly utilitarian framework; it’s an extra premise that privileges the category “humankind” for its own sake. You may believe that such a preference is natural or good from your own perspective, but that is not equivalent to saying that it is the preference of an impartial utilitarian, who would, in theory, make no inherent distinction based purely on species, or substrate.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 13, 2025, 4:06 AM
45 points
11 ∶ 6
on: Matthew_Barnett’s Shortform
A reflection on the posts I have written in the last few months, elaborating on my views
In a series of recent posts, I have sought to challenge the conventional view among longtermists that prioritizes the empowerment or preservation of the human species as the chief goal of AI policy. It is my opinion that this view is likely rooted in a bias that automatically favors human beings over artificial entities—thereby sidelining the idea that future AIs might create equal or greater moral value than humans—and treating this alternative perspective with unwarranted skepticism.
I recognize that my position is controversial and likely to remain unpopular among effective altruists for a long time. Nevertheless, I believe it is worth articulating my view at length, as I see it as a straightforward application of standard, common-sense utilitarian principles that merely lead to an unpopular conclusion. I intend to continue elaborating on my arguments in the coming months.
My view follows from a few basic premises. First, that future AI systems are quite likely to be moral patients; second, that we shouldn’t discriminate against them based on arbitrary distinctions, such as their being instantiated on silicon rather than carbon, or having been created through deep learning rather than natural selection. If we insist on treating AIs fundamentally differently from a human child or adult—for example, by regarding them merely as property to be controlled or denying them the freedom to pursue their own goals—then we should identify a specific ethical reason for our approach that goes beyond highlighting their non-human nature.
Many people have argued that consciousness is the key quality separating humans from AIs, thus rendering any AI-based civilization morally insignificant compared to ours. They maintain that consciousness has relatively narrow boundaries, perhaps largely confined to biological organisms, and would only arise in artificial systems under highly specific conditions—for instance, if one were to emulate a human mind in digital form. While I acknowledge that this perspective is logically coherent, I find it deeply unconvincing. The AIs I am referring to when I write about this topic would almost certainly not be simplistic, robotic automatons; rather, they would be profoundly complex, sophisticated entities whose cognitive abilities rival or exceed those of the human brain. For anyone who adopts a functionalist view of consciousness, it seems difficult to be confident that such AIs would lack a rich inner experience.
Because functionalism and preference utilitarianism—both of which could grant moral worth to AI preferences even if they do not precisely replicate biological states—have at least some support within the EA community, I remain hopeful that, if I articulate my position clearly, EAs who share these philosophical assumptions will see its merits.
That said, I am aware that explaining this perspective is an uphill battle. The unpopularity of my views often makes it difficult to communicate without instant misunderstandings; critics seem to frequently conflate my arguments with other, simpler positions that can be more easily dismissed. At times, this has caused me to feel as though the EA community is open to only a narrow range of acceptable ideas. This reaction, while occasionally frustrating, does not surprise me, as I have encountered similar resistance when presenting other unpopular views—such as challenging the ethics of purchasing meat in social contexts where such concerns are quickly deemed absurd.
However, the unpopularity of these ideas also creates a benefit: it creates room for rapid intellectual progress by opening the door to new and interesting philosophical questions about AI ethics. If we free ourselves from the seemingly unquestionable premise that preserving the human species should be the top priority when governing AI development, we can begin to ask entirely new and neglected questions about the role of artificial minds in society.
These questions include: what social and legal frameworks should we pursue if AIs are seen not as dangerous tools to be contained but as individuals on similar moral footing with humans? How do we integrate AI freedom and autonomy into our vision of the future, creating the foundation for a system of ethical and pragmatic AI rights?
Under this alternative philosophical approach, policy would not focus solely on minimizing risks to humanity. Instead, it would emphasize cooperation and inclusion, seeing advanced AI as a partner rather than an ethical menace to be tightly restricted or controlled. This undoubtedly requires a significant shift in our longtermist thinking, demanding a re-examination of deeply rooted assumptions. Such a project cannot be completed overnight, but given the moral stakes and the rapid progress in AI, I view this philosophical endeavor as both urgent and exciting. I invite anyone open to rethinking these foundational premises to join me in exploring how we might foster a future in which AIs and humans coexist as moral peers, cooperating for mutual benefit rather than viewing each other as intrinsic competitors locked in an inevitable zero-sum fight.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 12, 2025, 8:46 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Kaspar Brandner’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
We can assess the strength of people’s preferences for future generations by analyzing their economic behavior. The key idea is that if people genuinely cared deeply about future generations, they would prioritize saving a huge portion of their income for the benefit of those future individuals rather than spending it on themselves in the present. This would indicate a strong intertemporal preference for improving the lives of future people over the well-being of currently existing individuals.
For instance, if people truly valued humanity as a whole far more than their own personal well-being, we would expect parents to allocate the vast majority of their income to their descendants (or humanity collectively) rather than using it for their own immediate needs and desires. However, empirical studies generally do not support the claim that people place far greater importance on the long-term preservation of humanity than on the well-being of currently existing individuals. In reality, most people tend to prioritize themselves and their children, while allocating only a relatively small portion of their income to charitable causes or savings intended to benefit future generations beyond their immediate children. If people were intrinsically and strongly committed to the abstract concept of humanity itself, rather than primarily concerned with the welfare of present individuals (including their immediate family and friends), we would expect to see much higher levels of long-term financial sacrifice for future generations than we actually observe.
To be clear, I’m not claiming that people don’t value their descendants, or the concept of humanity at all. Rather, my point is that this preference does not appear to be strong enough to override the considerations outlined in my previous argument. While I agree that people do have an independent preference for preserving humanity—beyond just their personal desire to avoid death—this preference is typically not way stronger than their own desire for self-preservation. As a result, my previous conclusion still holds: from the perspective of present-day individuals, accelerating AI development can still be easily justified if one does not believe in a high probability of human extinction from AI.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 12, 2025, 7:50 PM
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: JoshuaBlake’s comment on: The ambiguous effect of full automation on wages
I think the conditions that support eventual below subsistence wages are fairly plausible, which is why I argued that the overall outcome is plausible. It appears Phillip Trammell either believes these conditions are less likely than I do, or decided to temporarily suspend judgement about their likelihood for the purposes of writing this post. Either way, while I agree the emphasis of our posts is different, I think the posts are still consistent with each other in a minimal sense.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 12, 2025, 7:41 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
Are humans coherent with at least one non-satiable component? If so, then I don’t understand the distinction you’re making that would justify positing AI values to be worse than human values from a utilitarian perspective.
If not, then I’m additionally unclear on why you believe AIs will be unlike humans in this respect, to the extent that they would become “paperclippers.” That term itself seems ambiguous to me (do you mean AIs will literally terminally value accumulating certain configurations of matter?). I would really appreciate a clearer explanation of your argument. As it stands, I don’t fully understand what point you’re trying to make.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 12, 2025, 6:47 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Kaspar Brandner’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
Preferences just are what they are, and existing humans clearly have a strong and overwhelming-majority preference for humanity to continue to exist in the future. [...] So the extinction of humanity is bad because we don’t want humanity to go extinct.
This argument appears very similar to the one I addressed in the essay about how delaying or accelerating AI will impact the well-being of currently existing humans. My claim is not that it isn’t bad if humanity goes extinct; I am certainly not saying that it would be good if everyone died. Rather, my claim is that, if your reason for caring about human extinction arises from a concern for the preferences of the existing generation of humans, then you should likely push for accelerating AI so long as the probability of human extinction from AI is fairly low.
I’ll quote the full argument below:
Of course, one can still think—as I do—that human extinction would be a terrible outcome for the people who are alive when it occurs. Even if the AIs that replace us are just as morally valuable as we are from an impartial moral perspective, it would still be a moral disaster for all currently existing humans to die. However, if we accept this perspective, then we must also acknowledge that, from the standpoint of people living today, there appear to be compelling reasons to accelerate AI development rather than delay it for safety reasons.
The reasoning is straightforward: if AI becomes advanced enough to pose an existential threat to humanity, then it would almost certainly also be powerful enough to enable massive technological progress—potentially revolutionizing medicine, biotechnology, and other fields in ways that could drastically improve and extend human lives. For example, advanced AI could help develop cures for aging, eliminate extreme suffering, and significantly enhance human health through medical and biological interventions. These advancements could allow many people who are alive today to live much longer, healthier, and more fulfilling lives.
As economist Chad Jones has pointed out, delaying AI development means that the current generation of humans risks missing out on these transformative benefits. If AI is delayed for years or decades, a large fraction of people alive today—including those advocating for AI safety—would not live long enough to experience these life-extending technologies. This leads to a strong argument for accelerating AI, at least from the perspective of present-day individuals, unless one is either unusually risk-averse, or they have a very high confidence (such as above 50%) that AI will lead to human extinction.
To be clear, if someone genuinely believes there is a high probability that AI will wipe out humanity, then I agree that delaying AI would seem rational, since the high risk of personal death would outweigh the small possibility of a dramatically improved life. But for those who see AI extinction risk as relatively low (such as below 15%), accelerating AI development appears to be the more pragmatic personal choice.
Thus, while human extinction would undoubtedly be a disastrous event, the idea that even a small risk of extinction from AI justifies delaying its development—even if that delay results in large numbers of currently existing humans dying from preventable causes—is not supported by straightforward utilitarian reasoning. The key question here is what extinction actually entails. If human extinction means the total disappearance of all complex life and the permanent loss of all future value, then mitigating even a small risk of such an event might seem overwhelmingly important. However, if the outcome of human extinction is simply that AIs replace humans—while still continuing civilization and potentially generating vast amounts of moral value—then the reasoning behind delaying AI development changes fundamentally.
In this case, the clearest and most direct tradeoff is not about preventing “astronomical waste” in the classic sense (i.e., preserving the potential for future civilizations) but rather about whether the risk of AI takeover is acceptable to the current generation of humans. In other words, is it justifiable to impose costs on presently living people—including delaying potentially life-saving medical advancements—just to reduce a relatively small probability that humanity might be forcibly replaced by AI? This question is distinct from the broader existential risk arguments that typically focus on preserving all future potential value, and it suggests that delaying AI is not obviously justified by utilitarian logic alone.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 11, 2025, 10:55 PM
8 points
4 ∶ 4
in reply to: Neel Nanda’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
In the absence of meaningful evidence about the nature of AI civilization, what justification is there for assuming that it will have less moral value than human civilization—other than a speciesist bias? While I agree that there is great uncertainty, your argument appears to be entirely symmetric. AI civilization could turn out to be far more morally valuable than human civilization, or it could be far less valuable, from a utilitarian perspective. Both possibilities seem plausible, since we have little information either way. Given this vast uncertainty, there is no clear reason to default to one assumption over the other. In such a situation, the best response is not to commit to a particular stance as the default, but rather to suspend judgment until stronger evidence emerges.
I personally am happy to bite the bullet and say that I morally value human civilization continuing over an AI civilization that killed all of humanity, and that this is a significant term in my utility function.
I’m glad to see you explicitly acknowledge that you accept the implications regarding the value of human civilization. However, your statement here is a bit ambiguous—when considering what to prioritize, do you place greater value on the survival of the human species as a whole or on the well-being and preservation of the humans who are currently alive? Personally, my intuitions lean more strongly toward prioritizing the latter.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 11, 2025, 10:46 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: Brad West🔸’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
From a purely utilitarian viewpoint, the harm of a short delay is utterly dominated by the scale of possible misalignment risks and missed opportunities for ensuring the best long-term trajectory—whether for humans, other organic species, or digital minds. Consequently, it’s prudent to err on the side of delay if doing so meaningfully improves our chance of securing a safe and maximally valuable future.
Your argument appears to assume that, in the absence of evidence about what goals future AI systems will have, delaying AI development should be the default position to mitigate risk. But why should we accept this assumption? Why not consider acceleration just as reasonable a default? If we lack meaningful evidence about the values AI will develop, then we have no more justification for assuming that delay is preferable than we do for assuming that acceleration is.
In fact, one could just as easily argue the opposite: that AI might develop moral values superior to those of humans. This claim appears to have about as much empirical support as the assumption that AI values will be worse. This argument could then justify accelerating AI rather than delaying it. Using the same logic that you just applied, one could make a symmetrical counterargument against your position: that accelerating AI is actually the correct course of action, since any minor harms caused by moving forward are vastly outweighed by the long-term risk of locking in suboptimal values through unnecessary delay. Delaying AI development would, in this context, risk entrenching human values, which are suboptimal to the default AI values that we would get through accelerating.
You might think that even weak evidence in favor of delaying AI is sufficient to support this strategy as the default course of action. But this would seem to assume a “knife’s edge” scenario, where even a slight epistemic advantage—such as a 51% chance that delay is beneficial versus a 49% chance that acceleration is beneficial—should be enough to justify committing to a pause. If we adopted this kind of reasoning in other domains, we would quickly fall into epistemic paralysis, constantly shifting strategies based on fragile, easily reversible analysis.
Given this high level of uncertainty about AI’s future trajectory, I think the best approach is to focus on the most immediate and concrete tradeoffs that we can analyze with some degree of confidence. This includes whether delaying or accelerating AI is likely to be more beneficial to the current generation of humans. However, based on the available evidence, I believe that accelerating AI—rather than delaying it—is likely the better choice, as I highlight in my post.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 11, 2025, 9:26 PM
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Brad West🔸’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
I agree EAs often discuss the importance of “getting alignment right” and then subtly frame this in terms of ensuring that AIs either care about consciousness or possess consciousness themselves. However, the most common explicit justification for delaying AI development is the argument that doing so increases the likelihood that AIs will be aligned with human interests. This distinction is crucial because aligning AI with human interests is not the same as ensuring that AI maximizes utilitarian value—human interests and utilitarian value are not equivalent.
Currently, we lack strong empirical evidence to determine whether AIs will ultimately generate more or less value than humans from a utilitarian point of view. Because we do not yet know which is the case, there is no clear justification for defaulting to delaying AI development rather than accelerating it. If AIs turn out to generate more moral value than humans, then delaying AI would mean we are actively making a mistake—we would be increasing the probability of future human dominance, since by assumption, the main effect from delaying AI is to increase the probability that AIs will be aligned with human interests. This would risk entrenching a suboptimal future.
On the other hand, if AIs end up generating less value, as many effective altruists currently believe, then delaying AI would indeed be the right decision. However, since we do not yet have enough evidence to determine which scenario is correct, we should recognize this uncertainty rather than assume that delaying AI is the obviously preferable, or default course of action.

Matthew_Barnett Feb 11, 2025, 7:33 PM
−5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
You say “one would need to provide concrete evidence about what kinds of objectives advanced AIs are actually expected to develop”—but Eliezer has done that quite explicitly.
What concrete evidence has Eliezer provided about the objectives advanced AIs are actually expected to develop?

Matthew_Barnett Feb 11, 2025, 7:16 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Brad West🔸’s comment on: The standard case for delaying AI appears to rest on non-utilitarian assumptions
Would you say the assumption that advanced AI will not be conscious is a load-bearing premise—meaning that if advanced AIs were shown to be conscious, the case for delaying AI development would collapse?
If this is the case, then I think this premise should be explicitly flagged in discussions and posts about delaying AI. Personally, I don’t find it unlikely that future AIs will be conscious. In fact, many mainstream theories of consciousness suggest that this outcome is likely, such as computationalism and functionalism. This makes the idea of delaying AI appear to rest on a shaky foundation.
Moreover, I have come across very few arguments in EA literature that rigorously try to demonstrate to AIs would not be conscious, and then connect this point to AI risk. As I wrote in the post:
To be clear, I am not denying that one could construct a purely utilitarian argument for why AIs might generate less moral value than humans, and thus why delaying AI could be justified. My main point, however, is that evidence supporting such an argument is rarely made explicit or provided in discussions on this topic.
For instance, one common claim is that the key difference between humans and AIs is consciousness—that is, humans are known to be conscious, while AIs may not be. Because moral value is often linked to consciousness, this argument suggests that ensuring the survival of humans (rather than being replaced by AIs) is crucial for preserving moral value.
While I acknowledge that this is a major argument people often invoke in personal discussions, it does not appear to be strongly supported within effective altruist literature. In fact, I have come across very few articles on the EA Forum or in EA literature that explicitly argue that AIs will not be conscious and then connect this point to the urgency of delaying AI, or reducing AI existential risk. Indeed, I suspect there are many more articles from EAs that argue what is functionally the opposite claim—namely, that AIs will probably be conscious. This is likely due to the popularity of functionalist theories of consciousness among many effective altruists, which suggest that consciousness is determined by computational properties rather than biological substrate. If one accepts this view, then there are few inherent reasons to assume that future AIs would lack consciousness or moral worth.