Just trying to get my head around this—this argument mainly works if you think that most people’s attempts to defend against x-risk are mostly bullshit right?
Like, if I actually believe that people in my reference class have good odds of changing stuff positively, it feels very wrong to just shrug and go somewhere else?
Part of the problem OP points out is that “changing stuff” =/= “changing stuff positively”. (“Here’s one. Crucial considerations and sign flips are common.”)
Just trying to get my head around this—this argument mainly works if you think that most people’s attempts to defend against x-risk are mostly bullshit right?
Like, if I actually believe that people in my reference class have good odds of changing stuff positively, it feels very wrong to just shrug and go somewhere else?
Part of the problem OP points out is that “changing stuff” =/= “changing stuff positively”. (“Here’s one. Crucial considerations and sign flips are common.”)
cf https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BnFuHDueG9vRAYqLd/changing-the-world-for-the-worse
Indeed, have edited my comment to reflect that.