I agree with this point, and I am among those who think that AGI is essentially a trap that never goes well and we shouldn’t aspire to it. I think there’s another interesting point to make: when it comes to climate change, I don’t support degrowth because we’re already way too deep into our dependency on energy and without it billions would die. But if back when the industrial revolution started we begun with an understanding that growing too dependent on fossil fuels was dangerous and we should use them only as a jumping pad to switch to other sources of energy ASAP, that would have produced slower growth and had some immediate opportunity costs, but odds are that the overall path would have included a lot less suffering. We’re in a position much closer to that when it comes to AI, still, so even the equivalent “degrowth” position would be sustainable. Though not sure what that would be (no AI at all, I guess?).
I agree with this point, and I am among those who think that AGI is essentially a trap that never goes well and we shouldn’t aspire to it. I think there’s another interesting point to make: when it comes to climate change, I don’t support degrowth because we’re already way too deep into our dependency on energy and without it billions would die. But if back when the industrial revolution started we begun with an understanding that growing too dependent on fossil fuels was dangerous and we should use them only as a jumping pad to switch to other sources of energy ASAP, that would have produced slower growth and had some immediate opportunity costs, but odds are that the overall path would have included a lot less suffering. We’re in a position much closer to that when it comes to AI, still, so even the equivalent “degrowth” position would be sustainable. Though not sure what that would be (no AI at all, I guess?).