Comments
During the week of March 23 – 29 [add to calendar], the EA Forum will be debating the statement:
“If AGI goes well for humans, it’ll probably* go well for animals”
*70% likelihood
I'm open to minor changes to the phrasing of this statement, but the general shape is locked in, since people might want to start writing posts for the debate week this weekend.
In this post, I’ll give some background on why this topic matters and share some tips and resources to help you form a view on the topic, before the debate week begins. But first:
During an EA Forum debate week, we put a debate slider on the frontpage banner. It looks something like this:
Anyone who logs into the Forum can then vote on this banner. When you vote, you’re also asked if you want to leave a comment, which will appear on a discussion thread, and be attached to your icon on the banner.
Alongside the conversation in the discussion thread, Forum users also write posts which might influence readers towards agreeing or disagreeing with the statement.
Basically - it is extremely neglected.
A relatively tiny group of people put serious odds on AGI radically transforming the world. Almost nobody thinks about how to influence outcomes for the better in a post-AI world. Even in that group, the conversation is focused on humans, and/or digital minds.
And yet, the consequences of a post-AGI world might be terrible for animals. The field of AI alignment aims to produce an AGI which is aligned to human values, but such values, as they stand, do not necessary include concern for animal suffering.
Even with an aligned AGI then, we could be facing a future full of bad outcomes for animals: continued farming, the spread of wild animal communities to new planets, or perhaps simply a lack of attention to what a flourishing future looks like for species other than human.
It's also absolutely possible that all marginal EA-influenced work should go towards surviving the transition to a post-AGI world/ general flourishing post-AGI (for that discussion, see last debate week). But I'd argue that the sheer number of animals, and the almost total lack of serious thinking [though see reading list below] about the impact of AGI on them justifies us entertaining an alternative. That's what this week is for.
To help you form a view on the debate statement, I'll list a few (non-exhaustive) questions which might nudge you one way or the other.
As a reminder, the statement is: “If AGI goes well for humans, it’ll probably go well for animals”
Suggest more questions in the comments, I might add them.
A list of posts which might help inform your understanding of the topic, and influence your cruxes.
Please suggest more in the comments, I'll add them.
PS- thanks to everyone who has already contributed to this debate week, including all the commenters here, and Forum users who voted on our Forum-Choice debate week poll.
Sounds like a very interesting and important question! One suggestion: why don't you change the question to "If AGI goes well for humans, what is your likelihood that it will also go well for animals?". I think this is an easier question to evaluate then assigning a likelihood to a likelihood. Like if I think there's an 85% chance of AGI going well for animals, I'm sort of unclear what number I should give for the original question.
Fair point, but the polls don't work particularly well for questions rather than statements. Plus we have comments you can attach to your vote so, for example if you thought there was an 85% chance, I'd recommend being most of the way to agreeing, and then commenting to explain your view.