Yes, the econ-brained part is the problem. In general you should think of economic-style reasoning as a way of subverting moral obligations. More on this in the forthcoming part 2 of my retrospective.
(As one extreme analogy, consider what would happen if the legal system let people offset murder, or other crimes.)
Yeah I know you’re against being too econ brained (vs social brained), and I’m pretty supportive of that stance actually.
But I think the case for economic reasoning is still kind of good in a lot of places? Or, I’m very interested in figuring out when it’s appropriate to apply. (excited for your part 2!)
I think murder or several kinds of crimes seem weird to offset, but also it’s not clear that working in capabilities carries the weight of murder, in the eyes of all but a very select few atm. One might argue that the job of an AI safety movement is to make capabilities work extremely sanctioned with the moral weight of murder (or perhaps nuclear arms proliferation), but I don’t think I’d fully agree with those.
Other analogies include carbon offsets (which, seem ethically fine, though maybe the way out for climate is through growth/solar not offsets), meat consumption offsets (which I tend to think seem good, but admit are controversial). Or, paying the government for certain kinds of licenses or taxes for when your org produces negative externalities (sound/noise, pollution, gambling).
There is no offsetting creating a world ender. I think it is common for there to be things for which there is no practical offset; where the amount of offsetting measured in monetary unit is dramatically above what offsetting culture would give you.
Yes, the econ-brained part is the problem. In general you should think of economic-style reasoning as a way of subverting moral obligations. More on this in the forthcoming part 2 of my retrospective.
(As one extreme analogy, consider what would happen if the legal system let people offset murder, or other crimes.)
Yeah I know you’re against being too econ brained (vs social brained), and I’m pretty supportive of that stance actually.
But I think the case for economic reasoning is still kind of good in a lot of places? Or, I’m very interested in figuring out when it’s appropriate to apply. (excited for your part 2!)
I think murder or several kinds of crimes seem weird to offset, but also it’s not clear that working in capabilities carries the weight of murder, in the eyes of all but a very select few atm. One might argue that the job of an AI safety movement is to make capabilities work extremely sanctioned with the moral weight of murder (or perhaps nuclear arms proliferation), but I don’t think I’d fully agree with those.
Other analogies include carbon offsets (which, seem ethically fine, though maybe the way out for climate is through growth/solar not offsets), meat consumption offsets (which I tend to think seem good, but admit are controversial). Or, paying the government for certain kinds of licenses or taxes for when your org produces negative externalities (sound/noise, pollution, gambling).
More links https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/04/ethics-offsets/ and https://sideways-view.com/2021/03/21/robust-egg-offsetting/ and https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-im-not-vegan
There is no offsetting creating a world ender. I think it is common for there to be things for which there is no practical offset; where the amount of offsetting measured in monetary unit is dramatically above what offsetting culture would give you.