I recently posted complaining about how EA's were unfairly stereotyped. To balance that, I wanted to share an article in which EA's are fairly stereotyped!
This excellent article by Dan Hendrycks talks about how utilitarianism (and to a lesser extent accelerationism) at AI companies creates a risk of human extinction.
People may agree or disagree with the argument, but unlike several mainstream depictions of EA, Dan's article is well-informed and explains in detail why he believes that EA thinking (to the extent that EA's are more utilitarian than average) is dangerous. At minimum, IMHO, EA's need to be ready to answer this argument if we do not want to be dismissed out of hand as credible commentators.
(several commentors on my original post replied that they didn't think the stereotypes I saw were so unfair, maybe this article is a good explanation of why.).
I think the article gives the impression that EAs are generally happy for humans to go extinct if they are replaced by happy AIs. But this isn't my impression. EA, at least outwardly, is very concerned about human extinction! Almost obsessively so!
I think a utilitarian can be in favor of humans staying in control and surviving. They might not think AIs will be capable of wellbeing, or might think there is a good chance they will have negative wellbeing, or might not be confident they will create a flourishing future.
What annoyed me most about the Hendryck's article is that he essentially assumes impartial utilitarianism must be wrong because it can lead to a conclusion he (and others) don't like. Impartial utilitarianism also would have suggested to slave owners they shouldn't keep slaves - a conclusion they and others wouldn't have liked!
I would have liked more philosophical discussion about if impartiality is or is not a good moral principle. But I suppose he wasn't interested in getting into that.