The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
currentaffairs.org
The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
1–10 of 109 posts
Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
#2I've seen people on twitter ranting about "Longtermism" before. What an unfortunate name - in the article they try to make a distinction between "longtermism" and "long-term-thinking", but that distinction is very clearly lost on others who are content to paint with a broad brush when criticizing the EA movement. Buying malaria medicine and nets actually do save the lives of people Right Now.
Can't it just be sufficient to accept that people have different utility functions that might subtly conflict, but are still good? I might care about saving existing lives in the world, you might care about saving existing lives in your county, someone else might care about saving potential lives 100 years from now, etc.
Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
#3I am not sure that concern over "AI risk" is fungible with concern over climate change. In my experience, people concerned over superintelligent AI seem to be of a philosophical and cultural orientation which is entirely aware of the risks of climate change and favors some degree of directed action against it. I am not sure, on the other hand, that I could think of a single "climate denier" I've met who would even parse the phrase "AI risk" in the sense used here.
As someone concerned about the "AI risk" of real existing ML systems turning society into a "legibility"-oriented nightmare for real existing humans in the here and now - and not at all concerned that we'll have a general AI that can out-think a human child in the next couple decades - I do share a sense of unease with the religious and eschatological overtones of the "superintelligence" crowd.
However, I find a great deal of irony in the fact that I've heard this exact argument - including a recognition of the religious-doom-prophecy-guilt-trip aspect - from global warming skeptics! I have to admit, when the author concludes with a call to action for the "global North", do they include the developing countries (e.g. China, India) likely to drive the bulk of emissions change over the next few decades? Otherwise, it might almost read as the invocation of a scientific doom prophecy to advance an only-somewhat-related agenda. This association unfortunately polarizes people who might be convinced to take more practical steps in the here-and-now - just as is the case with AI.
Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
#4What an incredibly interesting, thought provoking and extremely long way to tell us that the “guilty don’t feel guilty, they learn not to”.
Don’t get me wrong, you should absolutely read it.
Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
#5Gross. Longtermism is just the Singularity for a new wave of out of touch futurists.
Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
#6I've seen people on twitter ranting about "Longtermism" before. What an unfortunate name - in the article they try to make a distinction between "longtermism" and "long-term-thinking", but that distinction is very clearly lost on others who are content to paint with a broad brush when criticizing the EA movement. Buying malaria medicine and nets actually do save the lives of people Right Now. Can't it just be suffici…
You're getting dangerously close to suggesting that people should actually have agency in deciding which problems they care more about, and put their resources towards solving those problems. Surely the article couldn't be wrong; are you saying there are people other than a few wealthy easily demonized individuals who have priorities that society as a whole isn't paying attention to yet?
In all seriousness: yes, it ought to be sufficient to accept that different people have different utility functions, and that there are options other than "solve a problem collectively as a society" and "don't do anything about this problem at all". There needs to be a path to solve problems before those problems rise to broader attention.
For some reason, the article seems to be attempting to lump EA/x-risk/etc thinking together with those ignoring or downplaying climate-change. In practice, I've seen many folks who care about existential risks speaking very actively about needing to do something about climate change sooner rather than later.
Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
#7This article just attempts to discredit the idea of longtermism by ridiculing it, instead of presenting any actual counterarguments. It just writes about the implications of its strawman over and over in a sardonic tone. The only thing it wants to get across is “some rich people and philosophy weirdos like this idea, therefore it is bad”.
Where are the actual counter-arguments in the article?
I suppose it relies on the readers already agreeing with the author that these conclusions are appalling. It works in that case. It doesn’t do much for the reader otherwise.
Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
#8I can't help but wonder why, now, someone has chosen to highlight what is still far too small a movement and treat it as though it were a dangerous threat, and then demonize it by associating it with a few of its wealthier proponents.
Things like Effective Altruism and looking at existential risk are hardly drawing a substantial amount of attention right now; they should be, but they could get ten times the attention and funding and still only have a miniscule fraction of the people and funding going towards more popular causes.
And the set of people who think climate change isn't an important problem has almost no overlap with anyone thinking about existential risk. At most, I've seen a very small number of people suggesting that there are other high-risk issues that also deserve attention and aren't getting it.
Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
#9I am not sure that concern over "AI risk" is fungible with concern over climate change. In my experience, people concerned over superintelligent AI seem to be of a philosophical and cultural orientation which is entirely aware of the risks of climate change and favors some degree of directed action against it. I am not sure, on the other hand, that I could think of a single "climate denier" I've met who would even pa…
Climate change is always a risk but unlikely existential or at least to the extent it is we know how to handle it pretty well. So well that the number of climate related deaths have plummeted quite dramatically the last 100 years. We are constantly working on impacting nature in ways that make it safer for us whether we are talking building houses, using energy to keep warm or creating higher yield crop.
AI isn't necessarily that different in that its probably not actually as dangerous in reality as in theory.
Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”
#10Yet another justification for not giving a flying f about the present and near future...