I spent a weekend at Google talking with nerds about charity. I came away β¦ worried.
Halibutboy Flatface stashed this in Conspiracy theories
I didn't realize that a lot of the "altruism" in the Effective Altruism movement is about paying computer science researchers to fight the global world-historical menace of out-of-control Artificial Intelligence. This writer gently points out that arithmetic is not probability... but it's also important to remember, arms dealers always play both sides of the street.
In general, people should be altrustic about things they care about.
Who better understands the problem of rampant AI gone awry than people who are close to its creation?
Put another way: The number of future humans who will never exist if humans go extinct is so great that reducing the risk of extinction by 0.00000000000000001 percent can be expected to save 100 billion more lives than, say, preventing the genocide of 1 billion people. That argues, in the judgment of Bostrom and others, for prioritizing efforts to prevent human extinction above other endeavors. This is what X-risk obsessives mean when they claim ending world poverty would be a "rounding error."
I don't see.
The people we save right now by ending world poverty affect so many future people.
How could they not be part of that equation?
Not to be species-ist... but honestly, would it be SO VERY AWFUL in the gigantic scheme of things if humans died out?
But how would Pandas survive without us?
Adam, it is part of the equation. The [<] part.