Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by JoA🔸
2 min read1 answer 0

6

AI safetyAnimal welfareExistential riskExistential Choices Debate WeekHuman extinctionInvertebrate welfareLongtermism
Frontpage

Note : I'm probably using the wrong words / being imprecise at some point because I have limited knowledge of AI and longtermist concepts.

This is a question anticipating the Existential Choices Debate Week, but I've been asking myself this for the past few months - and when I've tried to look up an answer or ask friends, I haven't really found anything that pointed in either direction.

It seems to me that broadly defined, "existential risks" are very likely in the coming centuries. Many scenarios could "disempower" humanity and hinder our current technological civilization. The first thing I think of when considering about these scenarios, is what would happen to the trillions of non-human animals that will continue to live on earth at any time, with or without human or AI interference. This might not be the matter where most value lies, compared to evaluating counterfactual scenarios containing an even more astronomical number of individuals. Nonetheless when I'm thinking about what a trajectory where sufficiently intelligent does go extinct entails, this is what I am thinking of - in fact, my only post on the Forum is about this, and it already asks, at some point, the question I'm asking here. However, I've been told on some occasions that the reason these trajectories get relatively little discussion (though there has been some) is that most plausible scenarios where humans go extinct in the next centuries are ones where all non-human sentience would be wiped out too: in particular, in the case of ASI taking control of nearly all of the earth's energy and leaving none for current forms of biological life (I'm probably not using the right words, I apologize, I'm not very knowledgeable in this field but hoping to learn). Then, of course, there are cosmic risks, but they seem to be currently evaluated by EAs as quite unlikely in the next centuries.

In your distribution of existential risk, what part of the scenarios entail total extinction of animal sentience, compared to the "mere" disempowerment, radical population reduction, or extinction of humans in particular?

I also have a vaguer question that initially motivated me to finally ask my main question on the forum. Feel free to ignore that part, as it's not the main question. In any case, I'd very much appreciate to hear your thoughts on any of this. Here is the second question: if you believe that a substantial part of X-risk scenarios entail animal sentience being left behind, do you then think that estimating the current and possible future welfare of wild animals is an important factor in evaluating the value of both existential risk reduction and interventions aimed at influencing the future? I am asking this second question because I was planning to make a post on invertebrate sentience as being a possible crucial consideration when evaluating the value and disvalue of X-risk scenarios, but thought that if this factor was rarely brought up, it could be that I was personally uninformed on the reasons why the experiences of invertebrates (if they are sentient) might not actually matter that much in future trajectories (aside from the possibility that they will all go extinct soon, which is why this question hinges on the prior belief that it is likely that sentient animals will continue existing on earth for a long time).

6

0
0

Reactions

0
0

Have you voted yet?

This post is part of Existential Choices Debate Week. Click and drag your avatar to vote on the debate statement. Votes are non-anonymous, and you can change your mind.
On the margin1, it is better to work on reducing the chance of our2 extinction, than increasing the value of futures where we survive3
Disagree
Agree
New Answer
New Comment


1 Answers sorted by
Top

Oliver Kuperman

3
0
0
1

This is a very difficult question to answer, as it depends very heavily on the specifics of each scenario, as well as which groups of animals you consider to have sentience, and your default estimations of how worthwhile their lives are. For AI, I think the standard paper-clipper/ misaligned super intelligence probably doesn’t go as far to kill all complex biological life immediately, as unlike humans, most animals would not really pose a threat to its goals/compete with it for resources. However, in the long run, I assume a lot of life would die off as AI develops industry without regard for the environmental effects (robots do not need much clean air, or water, or low-acidity oceans). In the long, long run, I do not see why an AI system would not construct a Dyson sphere.


Ultimately, however, I do not think this really changes the utility of these scenarios, as human civilization is  also mostly indifferent to animals. The existence of factory farming (which will last longer with humans, as humans enjoy meat while AI will probably not care about it) probably will out weigh any potential pro-wild-animal welfare efforts pursued by humanity. 
 

For non-AI extinction risk (nuclear war, asteroids, super volcanoes) sentient animal populations will  sharply decline and then gradually recover, just as they have done in reaction to previous mass extinction events.


TLDR: 

For essentially all extinction scenarios, the utility value calculation is based on the difference between long-term and short term human flourishing against short-term factory farming of animals farmed for humans. Wild animals have similar expected utility in all scenarios, especially if you think they have about net-neural utility in their lives on average, as they will either persist unaffected or die (maybe at some point humanity will want to intervene to help wild animals have net-positive lives, but this is highly uncertain).


 

JoA🔸1
0
0

Thank you very much for answering both questions! This was clear and helpful.

Reply
More from JoA🔸
31
Human extinction’s impact on non-human animals remains largely underexplored
JoA🔸
· · 14m read
1
1
View more
Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Recent opportunities in AI safety
164
Forethought: A new AI macrostrategy group
5 authors
· · 4m read
5
5
10
Google AI Accelerator Open Call
Rochelle Harris
· · 2m read
1
1
57
Quick nudge to apply to the LTFF grant round (closing on Saturday)
calebp
· · 1m read
7
7
View more