"notkilleveryoneism" sounds dumb

So, on one hand, yes, it totally sounds dumb. But this seems to be missing the point of calling it "AI notkilleveryoneism", which is to draw attention to the fact that the last few times people tried naming this thing, people shifted to using it in a more generic way that didn't engage with the primary cruxes of the original namers*.

One of the key proposed mechanisms here is that the word is both specific enough and sounds low-status-enough that you can't possibly try to redefine it in a vague applause-lighty way that people will end up Safetywashing [LW · GW].

And, sure, there should also be a name that is also, like, prestigious and reasonable sounding and rolls off the tongue. But most of the obvious words are kind a long and a mouthful and are likely to have syllables dropped for convenience (i.e. AI Existential Safety is harder to say than AI Safety). One of the points is to have a name that actively leans into outrageousness of it's length.

Another part of the point here is to deliberately puncture people's business-as-usual attitude, via outrageousness/humor.

And, also sure, you can disagree with all of this and think it's not a useful goal, or think that, as a joke-name, things went overboard and it's getting used more often than it should. But if you're actually trying to get the people using the word to stop you need to engage more with the actual motivation.

*FWIW I do think "AI Safety" and "AI Alignment" aren't sufficiently specific names, and I think you really can't complain when those names end up getting used to mean things other than existential safety, and this was predictable in advance.

Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.
--Ernest Hemingway

"Notkilleveryonism" is apt. Sounding "dumb" might actually help it catch on. Surprising, outrageous, and controversial things tend to spread more on social media. Weirder things are more memorable. It's why many commercials are weird on purpose.

There are broader concerns than AI literally killing everyone, and you probably want as big an alliance as possible.

I think this is specifically what the AI notkilleveryonism term is trying to distinguish, though.

There are other concerns with other terms, but people wanted a term specifically for the concern that we're all going to be disassembled into tiny molecular squiggles, or other variations of the "unconscious meh [LW · GW]" outcome.

Maybe a better term for this would be "squiggle safety"? "avert the squiggle outcome"? "anti squiggleism"? "stop the squiggle"?!

I’ve personally been saying “AI Doom” as the topic identifier since it’s clear and catchy and won’t be confused with smaller issues.

How 'bout "non-omnicidality"?

How about existential alignment/existential safety, or x-alignment/x-safety?

I used "AI notkilleveryoneism" a few times in public comments. Since I was never attached to the term, I am willing to switch to to "AI extinction risk".

I'm happy that the term doesn't seem to be catching on in the circles I frequent - I've seen it mentioned here a few times, mostly in a negative or questioning stance (like this post), but I haven't seen it used in a way that's direct and non-aware-of-oddity.

I suspect that's because it's intentionally chosen to be awkward and childish, so it's unlikely to get co-opted or misinterpreted.  

A few other possible terms to add to the brainstorm:

• AI massive catastrophic risks
• AI global catastrophic risks
• AI catastrophic misalignment risks
• AI catastrophic accident risks (paired with "AI catastrophic misuse risks")
• AI weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) - Pro: a well-known term, Con: strongly connotes misuse so may be useful for that category but probably confusing to try and use for misalignment risks

Also, I can't resist a little meme reference here... https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-the-joke 

I sort of think of this movement as "anti-extinctionism".

I like the wording "AI global safety" which means that AI will not cause global catastrophes. 

"notkilleveryoneism" may be technically true in the world where only 5 people survive.

Another issue with "AI notkilleveryoneism" is that it is most easily accomplished by never building AI.

Maximizing strictly against that utility function means that we are guaranteed to never build AI, because however low the risk from AI may be, the risk from AI involved in not building AI is lower. (And at least some people around here have said things to the effect of "yeah, our world just shouldn't ever build AI, we cannot handle it.")

If you think that a world where AI is never built sucks compared to one where it is built and makes the world better, and that the later is possible, it would make sense to object to the terminology for that reason -- it would make sense to be reluctant to join a movement beneath that banner.