Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

currentaffairs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

#51

Post by pmoriarty »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #38
pmoriarty wrote: post #17

Putting people in to computer simulations could itself be considered an existential threat to humanity. This is because mind uploading could be considered either suicide or murder (if the biological person dies in the process), and the resulting artificial being might itself either not be alive or not human (or at least not the same person as the biological human it's supposed to be, as the biological person is a sep…

> The "friendly AI" goal is also hubristically misguided. There's no reason to think a superintelligent being would remain in the paltry little cage stupid humans dream up for it. It might be "friendly" at first, or merely seem friendly, but in a little time (or eventually) it is likely to escape and do whatever it wants. That's the point. The whole problem of “Friendly AI” is trying to design a superintelligent bein…

"The whole problem of “Friendly AI” is trying to design a superintelligent being that genuinely wants to help us, such that it will choose to do so even without a cage"

This "genuine" desire to help us is a cage by definition, because it limits the AI's actions.

Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

#52

Post by golemotron »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #8

I 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 attentio…

> I 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.

I agree. It's a clear signal of people trying to nip an idea in the bud.

The thing that they don't mention is that we have a way of dealing with risk that isn't "all or nothing" - insurance.

When people pile on billionaires for paving the way toward having people on more than one planet, I just consider it an extremely small premium to pay relative to global GDP to avert a real risk. The world can do many things like that.

Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

#53

Post by jablongo »

joe_the_user wrote: post #37
marcinjachymiak wrote: post #29

> Hence, they point out that focusing on superintelligence gets you a way bigger bang for your buck than, say, preventing people who exist right now from contracting malaria by distributing mosquito nets. This comment and others in the article seem to be making a (bad) case that Effective Altruists don't care about the Global South. I find this bizarre because all EA enthusiasts I know are very much into mosquito net…

The argument is specifically against longtermism and against the idea that "existential risk" should be prioritized over immediately helping people. Maybe there are actually a lot of EA who don't approach things this way. Great but that's not countering the objection to longtermism producing bizarrely distorted priorities. I'll admit the article doesn't make explicit the point that hypothetical scenarios like trillio…

I don’t understand where AI-safety research is ever meaningfully competing with renewable energy for resources. The article is making the case that these two types of progress are mutually exclusive, without any evidence. What’s a plausible scenario where the environmentally conscious choice today comes at the expense of individuals living 10000 years from now?

Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

#54

Post by ThomPete »

sammalloy wrote: post #36
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk, presumably is the outcomes of climate change- which are uncertain and almost certainly not guaranteed death for everyone

Wet bulb temperature, clathrate gun, food web collapse, albedo decrease, dormant virus release from permafrost, increase of tropical disease, water scarcity, crop and livestock failure—that /is/ almost certainly guaranteed extinction for humanity. How is this even debatable? We are already on this path.

these are not the certainties you think they are. You are confusing speculation with demonstration. Astroid hitting earth is a far bigger threat to humanity than any scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change. You are not on the scientific ground you think you are.

Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

#55

Post by rhaps0dy »

joe_the_user wrote: post #30
_Nat_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where are the actual counter-arguments in the article? It doesn't appear to attempt to make actual arguments. I think the article's mostly just an emotional appeal. I'd speculate that the argument-like content is meant as flavoring, to make the raw emotionalism less unpalatable.

That's incorrect. The article is making the argument that "Longtermism" is weighing purely hypothetical (and basic incalculable) future things more than present things. Whether this argument is true or not, there is an argument here.

I partly agree and disagree with your comment. It is true that the article says

> that "Longtermism" is weighing purely hypothetical future things more than present things

(please forgive the splicing). That is an accurate representation of longtermism as far as I can tell, because the future is inherently hypothetical (we don't know it yet).

But this is not arguing that longtermism is true, or false, or beneficial, or harmful. It's just stating its content, and expecting that the reader becomes disgusted by it.

The reason I spliced your comment is that the part

> (and basic incalculable)

is not necessarily true. The article does not really argue for or against the proposition of whether we can estimate the amount of future lives with any accuracy.

Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

#56

Post by JoshTriplett »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #41
JoshTriplett wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone seriously trying to tell people they shouldn't work to address climate change should rightfully be decried for causing harm. But the angle of trying to paint everyone thinking about existential risk with that brush is itself irresponsible and inaccurate. There are lots of people spouting things like "don't bother about climate change", and that harmful group has almost no overlap with anyone thinking seriously…

Are they contradictory? These supremacist ideas have a long and toxic history. And the moral foundations are always similar - some people today can be considered wholly disposable. And they are supremacist - based on the unproven belief that humanity has an obvious manifest destiny which will incarnate (or perhaps insiliconate) super-intelligence across multiple galaxies. It's juvenile Tom Swift fantasy. Humanity has…

Yes, they're fundamentally contradictory.

You seem to be implying that ideas and goals about preserving and benefit humanity indefinitely are somehow only benefiting a subset of humanity, or worse, are used to harm some subset of humanity. Anyone looking to twist such ideas or goals to only benefit themselves or a subset of humanity should be called out on that. But right now you're attacking the entire concept over your perception that it only benefits the rich, or perhaps some other subset of people.

By all means, attack inequality. But let's work to fix it. The response to "other people have nicer things than me" should not be "people other than me shouldn't get to have nice things", it should be "more people should get to have nice things". That's even more critical when those things are fundamental improvements and safeguards of people's lives. Let's raise the baseline for everyone, rather than focusing excessive energy on cutting down the tall poppies.

And science fiction has a way of inspiring and driving science fact.

Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

#57

Post by jablongo »

clairity wrote: post #15

it's hard to take the idea of longtermism seriously when it makes a basic mistake of treating its far future (10^58 people living in a computer simulation) as virtually certain. it has no concept of stochastically discounting this future among infinitely many into the present, let alone today's value of all those potential future beings(?), to arrive at a reasonable weighting on present decisions. with that said, i d…

I agree - the focus on climate change en lieu of more tangible (and easily modeled) issues like pollution and loss of habitat was a societal misstep since both problems have similar solutions: clean energy and and preservation of forests.

Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

#58

Post by s1artibartfast »

gregmuellegger wrote: post #45
rhaps0dy wrote: post #7

This 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 t…

It mentions directly the idea that: > a “small misstep for mankind,” however terrible a “massacre for man” it might otherwise be. and > You ought to care equally about people no matter when they exist, whether today, next year, or in a couple billion years henceforth This means that there is put value on unborn, potentially possible lifes. And then you can start weighing these lifes against currently living humans. A…

This kind of weighing is inevitable and we see it everyday. We are sacrificing current GDP to mitigate climate change for the benefit of future generations. Countries invest real dollars today in their infrastructure that will benefit the unborn.

If not for the value of future human life, perhaps we should crank up CO2 production and go out with one hell of a party. We might be able to minimize the impact to most people living today if we double our fossil fuel use. Replace the green new deal with a huge party fund.

Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

#59

Post by golemotron »

joe_the_user wrote: post #26
rhaps0dy wrote: post #7

This 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 t…

I disagree. The article argues that putting things in term of the "existential" distracts from immediate problems - for example, if climate change can be terrible risk but still not an existential risk. And more broadly, you see the argument extrapolate to an almost purely hypothetical future evades discussion of real risks in the present.

Just like fire and flood insurance distract from car insurance, right? It's tragic that we treat world attention as if it should be a "winner take all game." I don't think it will be effective, and it will certainly prevent us from dealing with a portfolio of risks.

Re: The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”

#60

Post by joe_the_user »

jablongo wrote: post #53
joe_the_user wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is specifically against longtermism and against the idea that "existential risk" should be prioritized over immediately helping people. Maybe there are actually a lot of EA who don't approach things this way. Great but that's not countering the objection to longtermism producing bizarrely distorted priorities. I'll admit the article doesn't make explicit the point that hypothetical scenarios like trillio…

I don’t understand where AI-safety research is ever meaningfully competing with renewable energy for resources. The article is making the case that these two types of progress are mutually exclusive, without any evidence. What’s a plausible scenario where the environmentally conscious choice today comes at the expense of individuals living 10000 years from now?

Here's a passage from Toby Ord's PhD thesis quoted in the book. "Saving lives in poor countries may have significantly smaller ripple effects than saving and improving lives in rich countries. Why? Richer countries have substantially more innovation, and their workers are much more economically productive."

It seems like the Longtermism critiqued by the article is discussing by article is indeed talking about the real distribution of real resource.

Post reply on HN