I find it somewhat hard to take "but what if it's good for third world children themselves to die" all that seriously as an objection. I think most anti-natalist philosophers would deny this. Isn't Benatar's view that is bad for people to come into existence, but it's often better for their lives to continue once they have started. In general anti-natalists are not usually utilitarians, classical or negative.
Wasn't Dario Amodei one of the earliest signers of the GWWC pledge? Long before Anthropic existed? That makes him quite atypical amongst very rich people right? Though for what it's worth I would probably bet against him giving most of his wealth away, even if he has pledge to do that.
For what it's worth, whilst I find arguing with Yarrow quite stressful, and I definitely don't always agree with her, and sometimes think she's a bit reluctant to concede, I don't think a ban was a good idea. Her comments are usually substantive, people who don't want to engage with them can just ignore, critical perspectives are always valuable etc. In some cases, she's actually spotted pretty important stuff that people had missed, i.e. that Waymo's still have humans in the loop, or a problem in a Forecasting Research Institute study that I cited during one our arguments.
They way to deal with the vagueness of "AGI" is to think about substitutability for human labour in an imaginary world where no regulatory barriers prevent this.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/omnibus-to-nowhere-the-quiet-dismantling-of-european-governance
What do you think the important claims being made in this piece are, and what evidence do you think it is giving for them?
"where a massive European data centre build-out sacrifices regional standards "
Can you say a bit about what you have in mind here and why it's important?
What current negative effects are you worried about? What measures do you want taken against them?
"but it seems to me that all the cluelessness arguments against consequentialism also undermine other decision-making systems as well."
This seems important. Why do you think that?
I find it somewhat hard to take "but what if it's good for third world children themselves to die" all that seriously as an objection. I think most anti-natalist philosophers would deny this. Isn't Benatar's view that is bad for people to come into existence, but it's often better for their lives to continue once they have started. In general anti-natalists are not usually utilitarians, classical or negative.
Wasn't Dario Amodei one of the earliest signers of the GWWC pledge? Long before Anthropic existed? That makes him quite atypical amongst very rich people right? Though for what it's worth I would probably bet against him giving most of his wealth away, even if he has pledge to do that.
For what it's worth, whilst I find arguing with Yarrow quite stressful, and I definitely don't always agree with her, and sometimes think she's a bit reluctant to concede, I don't think a ban was a good idea. Her comments are usually substantive, people who don't want to engage with them can just ignore, critical perspectives are always valuable etc. In some cases, she's actually spotted pretty important stuff that people had missed, i.e. that Waymo's still have humans in the loop, or a problem in a Forecasting Research Institute study that I cited during one our arguments.
Thanks, I follow you now.
I don't quite follow, can you spell out the reasoning a bit more?
They way to deal with the vagueness of "AGI" is to think about substitutability for human labour in an imaginary world where no regulatory barriers prevent this.