By Jordan Arel
If you prefer you can also read this (identical) post on my website:
Or watch a very roughly similar version on YouTube:
Epistemic status: story about my life for entertainment purposes, and some musings very much under development around EA longtermism vs. my own longtermism which I have admittedly thought about quite a lot.
A big thank you to Nicole Nohemi Mauthe who strongly encouraged me to write this at EAG SF. When I tell EAs that I came to longtermism on my own and wrote the first draft of a book on longtermism (though I didn’t have that word yet) BEFORE I discovered EA, they are often quite surprised and curious how this happened. Following is my full back-story of how I came to longtermism before discovering EA, a few brief remarks on how I have been surprised by the conclusions of EA longtermism, and possible implications for EA longtermism.
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, here’s a very brief summary, then a moderate summary. Skip these if you want to avoid spoilers:
Very Brief Summary
Through good parenting and Christianity I became a utilitarian, then through first principles analysis I let go of religion and got into Eckhart Tolle/New Age spirituality and learned about X-risk and the “spiritual enlightenment” of humanity as a potential solution to X-risk. I later got into social entrepreneurship and more systemic approaches to doing good, then learned about EA. I was surprised EA values AI safety so much, and I think broad longtermism (approaches to longtermism which are robustly good across many x-risks) may be underrated due to the vulnerable world hypothesis.
When I was a kid I was first indoctrinated into Christianity by my dad who I greatly admired, and became obsessed with proving it was true so that I could convert everyone else in the world and achieve a “high place in heaven.” The more I tried to prove it was true, the more self-contradictory it seemed, until I finally discovered New-Age/Neo-Advaita spirituality, and switched to believing that consciousness is universal, meaning my consciousness is the same consciousness in everyone, therefore I should try to make everyone happy even if I'm selfish and have no religious motivation. I dropped my quest to prove Christianity was true and to convert everyone to Christianity and devoted myself to enlightenment, a continual state of identification with consciousness and dis-identification with ego or mind, so that I could eventually enlighten everyone in the whole world. Crucially, I learned about existential risks of nuclear war and climate change through Eckhart Tolle’s book “A New Earth”, and his vision that humanity’s awakening was necessary if humanity was to survive. I also learned about the possibility of space colonization with trillions+ of humans through studying physics and was very excited by this idea. When I grew up I studied psychology then social entrepreneurship, wrote a book on broad approaches to longtermism, and then finally discovered EA. Since then I have been trying to better understand the concern around AI risks which surprised me, as I had been more concerned about black-swan technologies and vulnerable world scenarios which seem may require broad longtermism. I think this difference is partly because EA sees broad longtermism approaches as intractable, whereas due to my personality I like projects that require absurd ambition, as well as possibly due to groupthink/social forces in EA causing overvaluation of AI safety. I am looking more into AI now.
Childhood & Christianity
When I was a kid I really looked up to my dad. He was a stay-at-home dad, had a master’s in counseling, and was obsessed with being a good parent. He was very kind and forgiving, affectionate and emotionally intelligent, playful AF, and always made me feel special and like I would grow up to do great things. He had high expectations, but even higher love and gentleness. I have many fond memories of us talking about psychology, self-development, metaphysics, and many other topics. It was his example that first inspired me want to be a good person.
There was, however, one problem.
My dad was an alcoholic, and then later became addicted to pain pills. He was in and out of treatment centers and my parents got divorced when I was around age 8. I saw him only every other week, then very soon only every other weekend, then after that gradually less as I got older.
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) was a saving grace for him. While it didn’t cure his alcoholism, it made it much more manageable. AA is all about surrendering yourself to your “higher power”, relinquishing your attempts to manage your own alcoholism, and depending upon the AA community, the AA program, and God.
While AA leaves open what “higher power” means to each person, it pretty much always means the Christian God, probably especially in small-town Minnesota where I grew up. My dad’s mom (also the kindest person I know and one of my favorite people) was very religious, and my dad, who was moderately religious, became even more devoted to Christianity through AA.
I really loved our family Bible studies, going to church on Sundays, learning about Jesus through Bible school lessons, going to Jesus camp in the summers, and singing Christian music, especially the pop Christian music on Saturday night services, at which I sang and played harmonica in the church band into my high school years.
I was always very curious and wanted to understand what the metaphysics of Christianity implied about how to live the best life possible. My understanding was that the two most important things were to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself. I remember hearing that Christians from the Bible who did an especially good job at whatever God wanted them to do would have a “higher place in heaven” than anyone else. I thought to myself, selfishly, “I want to have the highest place in heaven!”, and then wondered how I would go about achieving this. After all, if heaven is where I’m going to spend eternity, then it would be important to get as high a place as possible. I also wanted to make sure I was doing everything right to actually get into heaven.
From my first principles analysis, I decided that I already loved God as much possible, so the only way to get a higher place in heaven would be to love my neighbors as myself better than anyone else. And if heaven or hell are where we spend eternity, either experiencing the maximum amount of happiness or suffering depending on which we were sent to, then obviously the best way to love my neighbor as myself would be to try to get everyone else into heaven as well. And the way to get in heaven, as I understood it, is to convert people to Christianity and get them to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. So, the only rational thing for me to do, then, was to convert everyone in the world to Christianity. So that what I decided to do.
First off in this mission, I had to figure out how I could prove to everyone that Christianity was correct. Furthermore, it would be quite important that I knew it was correct myself, because if I was wrong then I would be wasting my life on the wrong mission, and possibly go to some other religion's hell.
So between ages nine and ten I spent most of nights laying away thinking about how I could prove Christianity was correct. Unfortunately, the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. Christianity seemed to be completely self-contradictory and incoherent.
If God was infinitely powerful and infinitely loving, why would he make a universe where the majority of souls had to spend an eternity suffering in hell? If it was so that we would have free will which was a supreme good, then how did it make sense that the main determinant of what religion you believed in was the culture and family you were born into? This could only make sense if your soul also had free will to choose the life-situation you’re born into, which I had not ever heard discussed in church or anywhere else as a serious problem.
Eckhart Tolle And New-Ageism/Neo-Advaita
Fortunately, just as I was starting to become disillusioned with Christianity, my dad was reading a book called “The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment” by Eckhart Tolle. He was quite obsessed with the book. He read it three times and had us do study sessions on it just like we did Bible studies. I asked him if I could read the book as well, and for my 11th birthday (which happened to be my golden birthday on May 11th, my half-birthday also being 11/11, very auspicious, numerology being a guilty pleasure of mine, sorry for indulging) he gave me a copy, which I read with tremendous enthusiasm.
The book was extremely dense for an eleven-year-old. It opened my mind to a whole new world, describing an ideal state of enlightenment which Tolle had come to through a profound lifelong depression which he claimed at its peak instantaneously dissolved his ego, after which he spent 10 years wandering around and sitting on park benches in a state of contented bliss. The main idea of the book was that by being in the present moment, letting go of unnecessary thought, and ceasing to let the ego/mind run your life you can act from a state of connectedness to the intrinsic loving intelligence of consciousness which you most fundamentally are, the state which when maintained is a state of enlightenment which some Eastern religions hail as the ultimate state of being.
Moreover, “The Power of Now” claims that consciousness is universal; the accidents of our lives and our resulting identities and the roles we play are just many masks we wear throughout life. Underneath it all, what we are most fundamentally is consciousness itself, and consciousness is universal, the same everywhere though taking different forms depending on how the environment shapes each being. Love is realizing this truth, and hence recognizing the consciousness within oneself as the same consciousness within each being. If you see each being as fundamentally the same consciousness as yourself, seeing through the trappings of identity, then you will act in the best interest of all beings - love thy neighbor as thyself. I has stumbled upon an enlightened self-interest approach to utilitarianism.
It seems that this is another way of understanding enlightenment. Enlightenment is dis-identification with ego or mind, and identification with universal consciousness. From moment to moment we experience ourselves as consciousness and recognize consciousness as the same in every being, therefore selflessness or altruism is a natural byproduct of spiritual awakening.
Indeed, what I loved most about this identity of self as universal consciousness is that it erased the distinction between selfishness and selflessness. While I had felt some guilt and shame for being selfish in my desire to convert everyone to Christianity just so that I could get a higher place in heaven, if everyone in the universe was the same consciousness that I am, then acting in the best interest of all is actually also acting in the best interest of myself. If my consciousness is the same as all consciousness, then maximizing happiness for all consciousness is also maximizing happiness for myself, and so I no longer need concern myself with my own “personal” happiness and can focus all my energy on making “others” happy. What a relief!
This was the first book I had read which talked about the metaphysics and psychology of consciousness and the mind in a great deal of detail. I read the book multiple times and tried very hard to put it into practice but felt unsure how to integrate it with Christianity.
Two years later I read Tolle’s second book “A New Earth”, and was even more impacted by this book.
In it, he explains that religions are just belief systems, or bundles of thought, and while beliefs and rituals can be helpful if they guide us into the contemplative core of Truth, they become destructive when they get between us and our direct experience and embodiment of the divine, which we are ultimately not separate from. Intuitively this made a lot of sense, and I felt I was finally ready to give up the belief part of Christianity, in favor of a direct experience and embodiment of divinity. I still liked the idea of “God is Love”, and that we should devote our lives to this Love, and to loving our neighbors as ourselves, and I decided that if Christianity was in fact true, God could not fault me on judgment day for ceasing to believe in God who himself seemed supremely un-loving, in favor of pursuing actual love as best I could understand it.
So what, then, did it mean to live a life dedicated to helping as many other conscious beings as possible? Eckhart Tolle also had an answer for this.
In “A New Earth”, Eckhart’s essential claim is that humanity is undergoing an evolution of consciousness, evolving toward “a new heaven and a new earth” in which more and more people are undergoing a “spiritual awakening.” A few people, like himself, are becoming enlightened at a higher rate than before, but many more common people are undergoing a spiritual awakening in which they become attracted to teachings like his and undergo a more gradual path to awakening. This, he said, seems to explain the phenomenal underground success of his first book and the intense interest in his teachings.
Crucially for my story, Eckhart claims that this transformation of humanity is essential if humanity is to survive. Eckhart points out that humanity seems on the brink of destroying itself through nuclear war or climate change, the human mind having become so powerful that without an accompanying evolution in wisdom, it will inevitably lead to its own demise. While this claim may have only been a minor part of the book, I took it very seriously, and decided that rather than convert everyone to Christianity my mission should be to bring everyone to a state of enlightenment.
It made sense, I reasoned, that if everyone evolved to identify themselves as consciousness and acted lovingly and selflessly, then of course solving climate change and preventing nuclear war would be trivial. These things only come about because people are playing selfish zero-sum games. Cooperation would lead to highly positive sum games. If everyone recognized themselves as the same consciousness and so on the same team so to speak, then we could easily optimize the world to create happiness for everyone. You no longer have public goods problems if each person is trying to maximize the consciousness of every being in the universe as a whole.
Furthermore, if everyone were enlightened, and enlightenment is a state of egolessness, non-conflict, and perpetual contentedness, then this would indeed be heaven on earth, as everyone would be in a continual state of happiness as Eckhart and other purportedly enlightened beings seemed to have achieved.
So it was around age 13 (2005-2006) that I became firmly set on the goal of enlightening humanity in order to prevent existential risk and create a continual state of happiness in all sentient beings. To better understand how to achieve this, I read many books on “spirituality”, psychology, and self-development. I also read Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” and got very interested in physics. In school I was very good at math, winning some math competitions that spanned multiple states without really trying, and so I easily recognized the gravity of the situation that if humanity could likely colonize other stars and become many, many orders of magnitude larger than it is, then the mission of saving the world became that much more compelling because of the unfathomable potential size of future human civilizations that converted all matter in the reachable universe into maximally conscious happy beings.
I became even more committed to my mission because I realized that if we could indeed create a state of lock-in where humanity had evolved a level of wisdom and moral development such that we could prevent existential risk, then this entire future would be ours for the taking. If instead we destroyed ourselves in the near future this would all be lost, and the apparent lack of other intelligent life in the universe vis-à-vis the Fermi Paradox means our demise may eliminate the potential of any utopian intergalactic civilization arising in our observable universe.
At around age 14 and then again toward the end of high school I had psychotic breaks in which I thought I was Jesus among many other delusions. Perhaps the messianic and metaphysical themes were not surprising given my background. While each manic episode lasted for only a couple weeks, it really fucked up my life, especially the second time, when I was not hospitalized.
Things were so bad that I descended into an extremely severe depression and the only way I was able to get myself out was through meditating three hours a day, gradually working up to twelve hours a day over the course of the summer. Despite having read dozens of spiritual books at this point I had never actually done any sort of spiritual practice, which Eckhart Tolle and other Neo-Advaita teachers had advised against as its own trap. I found this period extremely therapeutic and transformative and after learning to observe and identify delusional thinking I have been fortunate not to have any problems with psychosis since. Furthermore, due to all the meditation, the rest of my life actually also got better than it had been before, overcoming some serious social anxiety and dating my first girlfriend. This renewed my faith in spiritual teachings and spiritual practice as a force for the transformation of humanity.
In college I studied psychology, reasoning that if I wanted to transform humanity, then understanding humans, how they think and behave, and how to influence them seemed to be of extremely high leverage. I studied first at North Dakota State University and then after a gap year at Naropa University in Boulder Colorado, a hippie school founded by the Tibetan Lama and iconoclast Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. At Naropa I discovered social entrepreneurship and was immediately hooked.
As time went by I had grown gradually disillusioned with New Age/Neo-Advaita spirituality just as I had become disillusioned with Christianity. It became clear that the goal of most “spiritual” people was at least as much if not more about helping themselves as it was about helping others. It was a very individualistic approach and seemed not to be having a transformative impact on the world, and at this point admittedly not even on myself. Over 10 years after being committed to enlightening myself and everyone else, I still hadn’t even enlightened myself, despite arduous meditation and spiritual study.
I learned about social entrepreneurship in a required “Community-Based Learning and Action” class, during which the CEO of Watson Institute, a highly selective Boulder-based accelerator for young social entrepreneurs from around the world, spoke to us about the topic. Social entrepreneurship, I learned, is a modality by which social entrepreneurs seek to create systemic, scalable solutions which shift societal systems to create a better equilibrium for everyone.
The absurd audacious ambition of these social entrepreneurs who literally sought to “change the world” in dramatic ways captivated me, and I realized quickly that creating systemic change was at least equally as important as creating psycho-spiritual-moral change.
During my senior year, I decided to do an internship at Watson, during which I would interview the social entrepreneur-scholars in Watson’s accelerator program and write my senior thesis on “Re-Envisioning Altruism: Toward a World Where Everyone is a Changemaker.” This was a nod to Ashoka, an organization which gives a living stipend and other support to social entrepreneurs around the world, 83% of whom go on to change national policy or create change at a national level. Ashoka had recently changed its primary mission to “creating a world where everyone is a changemaker” which they planned to do through changing the education system such that it taught children teamwork, leadership skills, changemaking skills, and cognitive empathy.
My thesis was that altruism should be systemic and generative, rather than based on self-sacrifice as is the typical definition in psychological literature. This was essential, I wrote, if humanity is to avoid several sources of impending doom. We need a paradigm shift in the way we think but altruism so that rather than focus on the psychological state of the altruist, altruism is defined by the quality and quantity of impact the altruist has on society. Social entrepreneurship, I asserted, was a fantastic way of thinking about this new altruism, and if we could systemically shift society to instill these values in its citizens, for example through education, this may be our best shot at creating a good world safe from the threats of our own technological power.
Coincidentally, during my research I typed in something like “efficient altruism” or “effective altruism” into Google and discovered an obscure philosophy called “Effective Altruism” which, from a video I watched where William MacAskill debates Giles Fraser, seemed to consist in earning to give and giving either 10% or as much money as possible to Against Malaria Foundation or similar charities. While I love this idea, and have always intended to become fabulously wealthy and to donate virtually all of it as effectively as possible myself, it seemed to me not actually that effective if it did not create any systemic change which dramatically and permanently shifted society, as social entrepreneurs were working to do.
After I graduated in December 2016 I spent a few years reading well over 100 books on social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship, business, systemic change, futurism, technology, and philosophy, and working at a couple nonprofits dedicated to children’s rights. While I believed and still believe that changing the way we think about children and totally changing the way we treat children could be key to creating a society with the kind of people who will prevent existential risk, especially in a vulnerable world scenario, admittedly, I was drawn to this movement largely because of my own childhood trauma, and as a result confronting the realities of child abuse day after day wore me down to an extreme degree. While I had hoped to build skills in this movement that could apply to later more important work, and I did build some skills, it increasingly became clear that I could not be effective due to my mental health being extremely poor.
In mid-2021 I left children’s rights to pursue a Master’s Degree in Social Work with a concentration in Social Change and Innovation at the University of Southern California. While in Portland during the summer before starting school, I wrote the first draft of a book on how to prevent existential risk tentatively called “Ways to Save The World”, with each chapter being a different way to save the world, a strategy for how X-risk could be mitigated, primarily broad approaches which were robustly good across many X-risks, as I had not studied in-depth the specific X-risks and how to prevent them. I had been thinking about this topic for a long time and had many notes on each chapter, so it only took a few days to write each chapter. Unfortunately I was out of money and had to start school, so I put the book aside for the time being.
After a few months I was extremely disappointed with the MSW program and social work as a whole, feeling it was not showing me how to create the type of dramatic change I was looking for, and so I applied and was accepted to the Master of Social Entrepreneurship program, also at USC, which started May 2022. I dropped out of the social work program in January and between January and May I attended many social entrepreneurship oriented events, sadly quickly realizing this was also not what I was looking for.
Social entrepreneurial ventures of top students included things like creating an app to deliver food that restaurants were going to throw away to homeless people, quickly setting up Wi-Fi in disaster zones after natural disasters strike, providing product management training to black women, and preventing fentanyl overdoses through drug training for students. Except one, these were all locally based in Los Angeles (though many had potential to scale,) and in fact to enter the school competition at which I saw these showcased they were actually required to be Los Angeles based. My assumption was that social entrepreneurs, like the ones I had met at Watson, would usually be globally focused since leverage is so much higher in developing countries, and it seemed common sense to me that all social entrepreneurs would want to be as effective as possible. I was sorely disappointed. It seems most people in the program just focused on whatever problem was in front of them, or what they were “passionate about”, and I realized then that this is generally true of most social entrepreneurs.
Fortunately for me, after dropping out of the MSW in January I really needed something to do between then and when my new Social Entrepreneurship program started in May. After browsing through each of the one thousand clubs USC had, I had a short list of 10 or so, at the top of which was the Effective Altruism club.
While I liked what I had heard about effective altruism before, I thought it was somewhat basic. But the way this club presented it, it seemed to be more about the project of rationally figuring out how to have much impact as possible, rather than any specific strategy or intervention. I visited EA USC at the club fair more than once, (they were one of the only clubs that showed up all three days of the club fair) and grabbed a copy of "Doing Good Better" and "The Precipice," both of which I had been meaning to read, and even though I already owned a copy of "Doing Good Better." I was especially delighted to see "The Precipice" being handed out.
I ended up simultaneously doing both the intro and in-depth fellowship fellowships at USC, as well as the project track which ended up being an impact idea prize contest for marketing our EA group. I attended all the EA USC social events, and EAGx Boston.
I was quite excited to learn about EA and its cause area foci of animal welfare, global health and well-being, and longtermism. I had been a committed vegan for a few years and had written in high school about how the world would inevitably become vegan in the near future for ethical, environmental, and efficiency/technological reasons. As I mentioned, I was very biased toward global health and well-being as far superior to local social entrepreneurship due to much grater leverage. Most of all, I was extremely, extremely excited to learn that there is a community of people dedicated to existential risk reduction.
As the summer approached I decided to take a gap year and move to Berkeley to work on longtermism projects full-time. I helped coordinate housing for over 80 summer interns in Berkeley, something which seemed to be robustly good, and I facilitated several EA virtual in-depth groups and "The Precipice" reading groups. My goal now is to understand EA as deeply as possible so that I can effectively work with people in the community on ambitious longtermist projects.
An Outsider's Views On EA Longtermism
My biggest surprise when learning about longtermism and EA is that EAs tend to be extremely biased toward targeted longtermism (targeting specific X-risks like AI and bio-risk), both in theory but even moreso in practice. Last year at EA global London Ben Todd noted (at 10:57) that while AI risk was under-invested, getting about 13% of the EA portfolio vs. an ideal investment of 28% according to what community polls said it should be, broad longtermism (approaches to longtermism which are robustly good across many x-risks) was under-invested by a factor of nine, with under 1% investment of the EA portfolio, despite EAs saying on average that it should make up 9% of the EA portfolio, making it the most under-invested cause area of all EA cause areas by a very large margin.
Broad longtermism is the approach of seeking robust interventions which improve humanity’s resilience against existential risks across a large number of known and unknown risks. While targeted longtermism seeks interventions that specifically target specific risks such as AI safety, engineered pandemics, nuclear war, extreme global warming, etc., broad longtermism includes things like global coordination, improving education, moral development and mental health, improving institutional decision-making, better epistemics, economic development, improving human cognition, etc.
This somewhat surprised me because I hadn’t thought it likely that we could be so confident in predicting future X-risks that we could confidently hope to address them each one by one in a targeted way. I had thought there was a somewhat larger chance of unknown unknown black swan events that could take the world by surprise as technological progress continues to accelerate, which would therefore require very broad and robust defenses. I still think this argument may hold to some degree as a case for pursuing broad longtermism.
I had also not been aware that climate change and nuclear war seemed so highly unlikely to actually by themselves completely destroy humanity, though after reading "The Precipice" I now concede this seems true.
Furthermore, I had not thought of AI as such a dominating force that achieving AGI or super intelligence would then preclude the need to work on anything else because an aligned super intelligent AI would just solve everything for us. After thinking it through I am moderately sympathetic to this argument, especially if transformative AI timelines are quite short.
But the other reason this focus on targeted longtermism surprised me is because I felt and still feel it is quite probable that the vulnerable world hypothesis is true, meaning preventing existential risk is almost impossible unless we make incredibly profound changes to society. The vulnerable world hypothesis, something I did not previously have a word for, is a hypothesis which Nick Bostrom articulated which states that it may be easier to destroy the world than it is to defend the world from destruction. I believe this may be more and more true as time goes on and technologies advance further. In general, it seems it is easier to destroy things than to create them due to entropy, and it seems that as technologies become extremely advanced, this asymmetry may become more and more pronounced.
For example, it could be that weaponized self-replicating nanotechnology could be much easier to create than it is to defend against, or perhaps it is even impossible to defend against if created effectively enough by a future apocalyptic terrorist. It could be that with advanced technology it becomes possible to create weaponized black holes that are obviously virtually impossible to defend against. It could be that certain super advanced autonomous weapons or super advanced computer viruses or any other number of super advanced technologies that we have thought of or not thought of might be extremely difficult or impossible to defend against; that with certain technologies there is a “bias” in favor of offense over defense, creating a vulnerable world, and that given trillions of years of time into the future in which such impossible to defend against technologies must not be created, it is of paramount importance that if any such scenario is true, then we must create a state of positive lock-in which either precludes the possibility of creating these apocalyptic technologies, or better yet precludes the intention or impulse of creating these apocalyptic technologies.
The reason it may be necessary to nip the problem in the bud by preventing even an apocalyptic intention is that if any futuristic being who is unfathomably more intelligent than we are has apocalyptic intentions, and given its intelligence it can easily determine how to destroy a vulnerable world, it is hard to see how given trillions of trillions of trillions of likely instantiations of such beings across the galaxies and unfathomable time there would fail to be at least one instance in which such a being would create the apocalyptic technology and destroy all sentient life within its lightcone.
While it seems that super intelligent AI may help us to create a state of positive lock-in, I fear that given a slow enough takeoff there would be at least one super intelligent AI which is unaligned and might rapidly take advantage of a vulnerable world, or if aligned to the intentions of an apocalyptic terrorist would quickly lead to the destruction of the world.
On the one hand, I understand why EA has not been attracted to broad longtermism approaches, as they seem eminently un-tractable. Creating global enlightenment or moral development, or creating robust global coordination, or creating enough education and economic development that everyone’s needs are met and exceeded and people can expand their horizons to think about long-term risks all seem like absurdly difficult tasks.
Nonetheless, I think such tasks may be a necessity in certain X-risk scenarios which I think it actually quite likely we may be in, if we are to survive. Therefore, I have not yet fully updated away from broad longtermism being underrated, not to mention that it is highly under-invested even for its current rating. Perhaps this is partially due to my bias toward extreme ambition and my background which is much more amenable to broad longtermism than targeted longtermism. While I am highly pessimistic about the world's current situation, I am highly optimistic about chances of future success, which is likely a personality quirk. I certainly think AI could be the biggest risk and highest leverage opportunity, and so am studying it right now myself to see get a clear grasp of it from first principles and to see if it is something I should pursue full-time.
I do believe it is possible that there is a strong groupthink phenomenon which happens in EA causing us to focus more on AI than we should or to focus on AI in such a way that is not optimal, but I only moderately believe this to be an important factor. It seems that most people researching AI safety accept without deep questioning or first principles analysis of the risk landscape that AI is indeed the biggest X-risk, and that direct work on it is the best way to solve it. Since these issues are wickedly complex and uncertain, it makes sense that most would defer to those who have spent more time studying the issue, but it does not follow that the few people who have fully analyzed the issue have come to the correct conclusions and haven't had significant undue influence on each other through first- or second-hand interactions. Most alarmingly, if direct work on AI safety is the wrong approach to reducing X-risk, and it is absorbing a large proportion of longtermist energy, then it may actually be having a large net-negative impact by distracting from whatever the correct approach to longtermism is.
It is interesting as one data point that I wrote a book about longtermism (though I didn’t have this word) and while I integrated moderately powerful AI into many of my solutions to X-risk, I didn’t take it very seriously as a threat, though perhaps this was due to a mixture of good and bad reasons. I may also write a long detailed paper red-teaming AI risk to flesh out and better understand my own thoughts when I have some time.
In the future I look forward to publishing some of my book “Ways to Save The World” here on the forum to get feedback before finishing and publishing my book. Though I love rationality, my book was not as much focused on rationality as it was on being widely readable by a popular audience, so as to persuade humanity to adopt longtermism. Therefore, I am considering rewriting it substantially to make it fit better with the EA aesthetic, though I am not sure about this. I appreciate any feedback on my thoughts on longtermism, as well as anybody else’s story of coming to longtermism, especially outside of EA.