This is an important post, and getting closer to a real-world ethic.
Two things:
1. Disagree about wild animal suffering. I'd rather be a wild animal who suffers in death than a factory-farmed chicken who suffers most of their life and is then boiled alive.
Fully agree. Except the dust specs thing, still not on board with that. And I've read about that horrific torture/murder before. Iirc, the psychopaths who did it got very light sentences.
And yet, for all your emotional appeal, you would gladly cause each and every instance of suffering outlined in this post a thousand times over for just a 0.0000000001% chance of reducing risks from AI by 0.001%.
Concern about wild animal suffering is slave morality
This is an important post, and getting closer to a real-world ethic.
Two things:
1. Disagree about wild animal suffering. I'd rather be a wild animal who suffers in death than a factory-farmed chicken who suffers most of their life and is then boiled alive.
2. As I discuss in the Philosophical and Longtermist chapters here https://www.losingmyreligions.net/
I'm with the other commenters that the dust speck / expected value calculations just don't hold up. I did hold your view, once.
Fully agree. Except the dust specs thing, still not on board with that. And I've read about that horrific torture/murder before. Iirc, the psychopaths who did it got very light sentences.
And yet, for all your emotional appeal, you would gladly cause each and every instance of suffering outlined in this post a thousand times over for just a 0.0000000001% chance of reducing risks from AI by 0.001%.