Ratios's Shortform

post by Ratios · 2024-03-19T09:49:11.796Z · LW · GW · 4 comments

Contents

4 comments

4 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Ratios · 2024-03-19T09:49:12.057Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

S-risks are barely discussed in LW, is that because:

  • People think they are so improbable that it's not worth mentioning.
  • People are scared to discuss them.
  • Avoiding creating hypersititous textual attractors
  • Other reasons?
Replies from: ChristianKl, Nate Showell, Dagon
↑ comment by Nate Showell · 2024-03-21T03:24:12.667Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Mostly the first reason. The "made of atoms that can be used for something else" piece of the standard AI x-risk argument also applies to suffering conscious beings, so an AI would be unlikely to keep them around if the standard AI x-risk argument ends up being true.

↑ comment by Dagon · 2024-03-19T15:53:32.044Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
  • There's a wide variance in how "suffering" is perceived, weighted, and (dis)valued, and no known resolution to different intuitions about it.  

There's no real agreement on what S-risks even are, and whether they're anything but a tiny subset of other X-risks.

  • Many people care less about (others) suffering than they do about positive-valence experience (of others).  This may or may not be related to the fact that suffering is generally low-status and satisfaction/meaning is high-status.