Flagging that Diffractor's work on threat-resistant bargaining [AF · GW] feels like the most important s-risk-related work I've ever seen, but I also haven't thoroughly evaluated it so I'd love for someone to do so and write up their thoughts.

There's a new forum for this that seeks to increase discussion & coordination, reddit.com/r/sufferingrisk.

Not really core to any of those communities, so I don't have specific answers.  But I note that complacency is the human default for ANYTHING that doesn't have direct, obvious, immediate impact on an individual and their loved ones.

From nuclear war risks to repeated financial crises to massive money and power differentials, "why are we so complacent about X" is a common and valid question, rarely answered.

I'd recommend instead you frame it as a recommendation for specific action, not a question about attitude.  "you, dear reader, should do Y next week to reduce expected {average, total, median, whatever} future suffering" would go a lot further than asking why they're not obsessing over the topic.

I will note, though, for myself, I tend to focus on magnitude of positive experience-moments with some declining marginal value for both intensity and quantity) rather than suffering in isolation, so I think about s-risks only when they're so universal as to effectively be x-risks.

I'd like to add another question: 

Why aren't we more concerned about s-risk than x-risk? 

Given that virtually everyone would prefer dying rather than facing an indefinite amount of suffering for an indefinite amount of time, I don't understand why more people are asking this question.

Personally, I have some deep psychological trauma related to pain and thinking about the topic is ... unproductive for me. Prolonged thinking about S-risks scares me, and I might not be able to think clearly about the topic. But maybe I could. The fear is what keeps me away. This is a flaw, and I'm unsure if it extends to other rationalists/EAs, but I'd guess people in these groups are unusually likely to have such scars because the LW memeplex is attractive to the walking wounded. I wouldn't be suprised if a few alignment researchers avoid s-risks for similair reasons. 

Averting s-risks mostly means preventing zero-sum AI conflict. If we find a way (or many ways) to do that, every somewhat rational AI will voluntarily adopt them, because who wants to lose out on gains from trade.

You're hoping to come up with an argument for human value, that will be accepted by any AI, no matter what its value system?