The problem with this argument is that you’ve spent so much emotional effort arguing why the world is screwed without FAI, that you’ve neglected to hold the claim “The FAI effort currently being conducted by SIAI is likely to succeed in saving the world” to the standards of evidence you would otherwise demand.
Consider the following exercise in leaving a line of retreat: suppose Omega told you that SIAI’s FAI project was going to fail, what would you do?
I wasn’t making any arguments to the fact that SIAI is likely to succeed in saving the world or even that they are the best option for FAI. (In fact, I have a lot of doubts about it.) That’s a really complicated argument, and I really don’t have enough information to make a statement like that. As I’ve said, my goal is to make FAI happen. If SIAI isn’t the best option, I’ll find another best option. If it turns out that FAI is not really what we need, then I’ll work on whatever it is we do.
The problem with this argument is that you’ve spent so much emotional effort arguing why the world is screwed without FAI, that you’ve neglected to hold the claim “The FAI effort currently being conducted by SIAI is likely to succeed in saving the world” to the standards of evidence you would otherwise demand.
Consider the following exercise in leaving a line of retreat: suppose Omega told you that SIAI’s FAI project was going to fail, what would you do?
I wasn’t making any arguments to the fact that SIAI is likely to succeed in saving the world or even that they are the best option for FAI. (In fact, I have a lot of doubts about it.) That’s a really complicated argument, and I really don’t have enough information to make a statement like that. As I’ve said, my goal is to make FAI happen. If SIAI isn’t the best option, I’ll find another best option. If it turns out that FAI is not really what we need, then I’ll work on whatever it is we do.