However, you usually have additional information about the action, so the argument doesn’t apply. So your principle is very weak.
Yes, it is a weak default case, but it generalizes. If rational, the people who find the aggregate risk the most serious should also have the highest threshold for engaging in any behavior increasing that risk.
This largely holds when it comes to the public actions of e.g. climate activists and even what i called “pop” AI criticis, but the opposite is true for some of the people who proclaim to be the most critical of AI.
To which I would say, “No really, let’s talk about the numbers, it checks out.”
Then give the numbers. The only concrete numbers you gave me was gwern thinking there was negative expected utility to the production of new fiction, which runs directly counter to your claimed rationale.
Yes, it is a weak default case, but it generalizes. If rational, the people who find the aggregate risk the most serious should also have the highest threshold for engaging in any behavior increasing that risk.
This largely holds when it comes to the public actions of e.g. climate activists and even what i called “pop” AI criticis, but the opposite is true for some of the people who proclaim to be the most critical of AI.
Then give the numbers. The only concrete numbers you gave me was gwern thinking there was negative expected utility to the production of new fiction, which runs directly counter to your claimed rationale.