This is assuming ASI is positive expected lifespan.
(I think it’s a bit wonky where, in most worlds, I think ASI kills everyone, but, in some worlds, it does radically improve longevity, probably more than 1000 but where I think you need some time-discounting. I think this means it substantially reduces the median lifespan but might also substantially increase the meanlifespan. I’m not sure what to make of that and can imagine it basically working out to what you say here, but, I think does depend on your specific beliefs about that)
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.
This is assuming ASI is positive expected lifespan.
(I think it’s a bit wonky where, in most worlds, I think ASI kills everyone, but, in some worlds, it does radically improve longevity, probably more than 1000 but where I think you need some time-discounting. I think this means it substantially reduces the median lifespan but might also substantially increase the mean lifespan. I’m not sure what to make of that and can imagine it basically working out to what you say here, but, I think does depend on your specific beliefs about that)
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.