The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence • Hacker News Board

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#191

Post by matthewdgreen » Tue, Apr 14, 2026, 6:40 PM UTC

hollerith wrote: post #171

janalsncm wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently he deleted the tweet but there are screenshots and he apologized. https://betweendrafts.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/survivo... https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1642229374656348161

Those 2 links certainly satisfy my request. Thank you. My summary of Eliezer's deleted tweet is that Eliezer is pointing out that even if everyone dies except for the handful of people it would take to repopulate the Earth, even that (pretty terrible) outcome would be preferable to the outcome that would almost certainly obtain if the AI enterprise continues on its present course (namely, everyone's dying, with the r…

You have a population of relatively wealthy, scientifically-educated people who believe that AI risk is real and existential. That if they/we don't act, humanity itself might become extinct -- and that this is an unacceptable outcome. Then you have Yudkowsky mooting the possibility that this is basically inevitable (in the absence of global coordination that seems highly unlikely), and suggesting that hyper-violent outcomes might be literally the only way our species survives.

What I am not saying: Yudkowsky intends to exterminate most of humanity.

What I am saying: this is a dangerous environment, and these kinds of statements will be seen as a call to action by a certain kind of person. TFA is literal proof of the truth of that statement. Moreover: within the community there exist trained experts who might be able to, at the cost of millions of lives, plan an attack that could (plausibly) delay AI by many years.

The danger of this argument is that someone who reveres Yudkowsky might take his arguments to the logical conclusion, and actually do something to act on them. (Although I can't prove it, I also think Yudkowsky knows this, and his decision to speak publicly should be viewed as an indicator of his preferences.) That's why these conversations are so dangerous, and why I'm not going to give Yudkowsky and his folks a lot of credit for "just having an intellectual argument." I think this is like having an intellectual discussion about a theater being on fire, while sitting in a crowded theater.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#192

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 14, 2026, 6:50 PM UTC

hollerith wrote: post #117

matthewdgreen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eliezer Yudkowsky has gone so far as to say that it might be ok to kill most of humanity (excepting a "viable reproduction population") to stop AI. If that's not just talk, then this line reasoning only gives you a few possible modes of action. I would not be worried about the people with Molotov cocktails, but I'd be very worried about bio terrorism.

>Eliezer Yudkowsky has gone so far as to say that it might be ok to kill most of humanity (excepting a "viable reproduction population") to stop AI That doesn't sound like a non-misleading summary of anything he would say. Do you have a quote or a link?

[deleted]

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#193

Post by janalsncm » Tue, Apr 14, 2026, 8:04 PM UTC

hollerith wrote: post #171

janalsncm wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently he deleted the tweet but there are screenshots and he apologized. https://betweendrafts.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/survivo... https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1642229374656348161

Those 2 links certainly satisfy my request. Thank you. My summary of Eliezer's deleted tweet is that Eliezer is pointing out that even if everyone dies except for the handful of people it would take to repopulate the Earth, even that (pretty terrible) outcome would be preferable to the outcome that would almost certainly obtain if the AI enterprise continues on its present course (namely, everyone's dying, with the r…

The question was

> How many people are allowed to die to prevent AGI?

He didn’t say “not everyone dying is preferable to everyone dying”. The question was about acceptable consequences from preemptively stopping AGI under his assumption that AGI will lead to the extinction all humans.

Those are only the same thing under the assumptions that 1) AGI is inevitable without intervention and 2) AGI will lead to the extinction of humanity.

If he believes he is being misunderstood, his “apology” doesn’t actually deny either of the assumptions I identified, and he is widely known to believe them.

In fact, his stated reason for correcting his earlier tweet, that using nuclear weapons is taboo, is an extremely weak excuse. Given the opportunity to save humanity from AGI if that is what you believe, it would be comical to draw the line at first use of nukes.

No, I think Eliezer is trying to come to grips with the logical conclusion of his strident rhetoric.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#194

Post by janalsncm » Tue, Apr 14, 2026, 8:15 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #191

hollerith wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 2 links certainly satisfy my request. Thank you. My summary of Eliezer's deleted tweet is that Eliezer is pointing out that even if everyone dies except for the handful of people it would take to repopulate the Earth, even that (pretty terrible) outcome would be preferable to the outcome that would almost certainly obtain if the AI enterprise continues on its present course (namely, everyone's dying, with the r…

You have a population of relatively wealthy, scientifically-educated people who believe that AI risk is real and existential. That if they/we don't act, humanity itself might become extinct -- and that this is an unacceptable outcome . Then you have Yudkowsky mooting the possibility that this is basically inevitable (in the absence of global coordination that seems highly unlikely), and suggesting that hyper-violent…

I said something to the same effect in a sibling comment to yours.

> someone who reveres Yudkowsky might take his arguments to the logical conclusion

What about Eliezer himself? Does he not believe his own rhetoric? Certainly if he believes the future of the human race is at stake it demands more action than writing a book about it and going on a few podcasts.

I think the whole thing is a bit like the dog who finally caught the car. It’s easy to use this strident rhetoric on an Internet forum, but LessWrong isn’t real life.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#195

Post by vrganj » Tue, Apr 14, 2026, 8:50 PM UTC

TuringTest wrote: post #190

vrganj wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, think of Lenin or Mao as direct counterexamples.

You think Lenin and Mao didn't have behind them an ideology in their societies that supported them? Why did people follow their orders then, mind control?

They created the conditions through agitprop. You're inverting cause and effect.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#196

Post by matthewdgreen » Tue, Apr 14, 2026, 9:12 PM UTC

janalsncm wrote: post #194

matthewdgreen wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a population of relatively wealthy, scientifically-educated people who believe that AI risk is real and existential. That if they/we don't act, humanity itself might become extinct -- and that this is an unacceptable outcome . Then you have Yudkowsky mooting the possibility that this is basically inevitable (in the absence of global coordination that seems highly unlikely), and suggesting that hyper-violent…

I said something to the same effect in a sibling comment to yours. > someone who reveres Yudkowsky might take his arguments to the logical conclusion What about Eliezer himself? Does he not believe his own rhetoric? Certainly if he believes the future of the human race is at stake it demands more action than writing a book about it and going on a few podcasts. I think the whole thing is a bit like the dog who finally…

If I ran the FBI I would be very gently keeping tabs on the most fervent (and technically capable) anti-AI groups. Unfortunately I don't think anyone is currently running the FBI. If I was tightly connected to folks in these communities, I would be keeping tabs on my friends and making sure they're not getting talked into anything crazy.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#197

Post by pksebben » Tue, Apr 14, 2026, 11:29 PM UTC

pembrook wrote: post #168

pksebben wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to go to bat for Mao(1), but I think you're underplaying the body count that capitalist countries have had - this is kind of easy to do because a lot of the damage that we do is obfuscated behind proxies. Besides the obvious and direct war crimes like Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, and now I guess Iran again, there's the second order stuff like Israel's Bad Neighbor Syndrome (which we have enabled financially for…

> I think mostly we're clamoring for something closer to Norway. I'm sure plenty of people would be happy to settle for UK-style socialized services Norway is a Saudi Arabia-style petrostate just with white people aesthetics (Saudi Arabia is also socialist). A better analogue might be Sweden/Finland, also tiny socialist Lutheran countries but with no massive oil reserves. I write this while currently living in Finlan…

all fair points - but what strengths? We've proven ourselves incapable of the most basic social goods for decades now. All the metrics that you might point to as "hey the US is doing fine" (GDP, deficit, sector growth) are concerned specifically with how the state is doing and desperately unconcerned with it's citizens, which I think is a principal issue here.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#198

Post by TuringTest » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 5:19 AM UTC

vrganj wrote: post #195

TuringTest wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Lenin and Mao didn't have behind them an ideology in their societies that supported them? Why did people follow their orders then, mind control?

They created the conditions through agitprop. You're inverting cause and effect.

No, I'm saying that they are not cause and effect but coevolution. Their agitprop could have such huge impact because of the conditions of workers in Zarist Russia and the Republic of China respectively. They wouldn't have worked in a different society; so no, they didn't single-handedly create the conditions for their own power, there was a previous substrate they could work on.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#199

Post by pembrook » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 10:35 AM UTC

pksebben wrote: post #197

pembrook wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think mostly we're clamoring for something closer to Norway. I'm sure plenty of people would be happy to settle for UK-style socialized services Norway is a Saudi Arabia-style petrostate just with white people aesthetics (Saudi Arabia is also socialist). A better analogue might be Sweden/Finland, also tiny socialist Lutheran countries but with no massive oil reserves. I write this while currently living in Finlan…

all fair points - but what strengths? We've proven ourselves incapable of the most basic social goods for decades now. All the metrics that you might point to as "hey the US is doing fine" (GDP, deficit, sector growth) are concerned specifically with how the state is doing and desperately unconcerned with it's citizens , which I think is a principal issue here.

I think I'm arguing from a position of the quantitative numbers and you're arguing from qualitative vibes, hence why there's a disconnect.

But here's why its important to look at the quantitative reality of the numbers going forward--they are going to absolutely change the qualitative populist vibes.

In 30 years, even if the AI bubble pops and US growth rates normalize to something low like 2%, the US will have a GDP per capita of $130k in 2050. Meanwhile with 0.8% growth (very optimistic for Germany, may be much worse) the average German will earn roughly $75K with far worse demographics ballooning their deficits even further unless they dramatically cut social benefits or cause massive inflation to inflate away social debts.

I can guarantee your vibes of the situation will change over the next 30 years as European nations continue falling behind the US in economic power. The US will have massive optionality to improve its healthcare/education system with this extra wealth. Europe will have the opposite problem, deciding which benefits/services to cut next with a growing welfare burden combined with a not-growing private sector to fund it.

As far as strengths? I think having the next economic revolution be centered in your country (AI) is pretty valuable no? If it raises productivity and GDP growth by even 0.5%, I can guarantee the US will also capture that better than Germany/Europe will given its technophobic culture.

Re: The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

#200

Post by aaroninsf » Wed, Apr 15, 2026, 6:14 PM UTC

aaroninsf wrote: post #31

Hot take: I assume the author wrote this with the expectation that much of the readsherp gasp, and react with "the natural horror all right thinking folk would have in response to violence of any kind." Sorry, lol, no. The appropriate question for "all right thinking" folk is very different: if argumentation has no impact and it's obvious that it shall have none—what other avenue do you expect opponents, who take the…

Telling to be down voted.

Hard truths are hard.

Cliché though it may be, with great power comes great responsibility.

Tech culture, as epitomized by the general readership of this site, have to great degree, if of course not uniformly, abdicated that responsibility;

and the general leadership of the industry and as epitomized by the culture Y Combinator has helped build, are much more uniform in this abdication.

There is neither political nor moral mystery here; there is just denialism, ignorance, and avoidance.

If you feel attacked by these accusations, as always it's a fine time to ask why.

What accommodations have you made...? What expedience have you allowed? What do you look away from or shy from reasoning through about the impact of the technologies you work on, the behavior of your employer?

That everyone is complicit is not a defense; it's an indictment.

The violence of present concern is a wholely natural and entirely predictable response to the diffused violence our industry and capitalism generally has performed against a humanity, not to mention to the biosphere.

Violence will continue, and if you think it is indefensible—provide then some alternative mechanism for steering resources and allocation of power.

We, collectively, constructed the tensions which are now resolving in exactly the manner one would expect, if only one were remotely familiar with history or indeed human nature.

Those in tech who declined to study or understand the humanities may be surprised to learn that the forces at work have well understood and inspected patterns. Ignorance is no excuse.