Hmm, yeah. I’m more hopeful than you, but I think I’d be moved by my argument even with a worldview like “80% extinction, 10% extreme longevity and welfare, 10% business as usual”. I know some people are doomier than that.
Also the timelines matter. If you have 1 year timelines with 99% extinction and 1% extreme longevity and welfare, then I think this still favours AMF over GD. Like, when I imagine myself in this scenario, and compare two benefits — “reduce my chance of dying of malaria in the next year from 10% to 0%”[1] and “double my personal consumption over the next year” — the former seems better.
IDK, I’m pretty uncertain. When I think about ASI in the next 10 years I feel urgency to keep people alive till then, because it would be such an L if someone died just before we achieved extreme longevity and welfare.
Hmm, yeah. I’m more hopeful than you, but I think I’d be moved by my argument even with a worldview like “80% extinction, 10% extreme longevity and welfare, 10% business as usual”. I know some people are doomier than that.
Also the timelines matter. If you have 1 year timelines with 99% extinction and 1% extreme longevity and welfare, then I think this still favours AMF over GD. Like, when I imagine myself in this scenario, and compare two benefits — “reduce my chance of dying of malaria in the next year from 10% to 0%”[1] and “double my personal consumption over the next year” — the former seems better.
IDK, I’m pretty uncertain. When I think about ASI in the next 10 years I feel urgency to keep people alive till then, because it would be such an L if someone died just before we achieved extreme longevity and welfare.
I consider 10% not 100% because AMF has a tenth the beneficiaries as GD.