I don’t have a well defended position. All I have is an estimate of confidence that my action or inaction would affect the hypothetical AGI x-risk in a known way. And that confidence is too low to be worth acting upon.
This is close to my current position, but I would update if I learned that there’s a non-negligible chance of AGI within the next 20 years.
I have extremely low confidence that these interventions can affect the hypothetical AGI x-risk in the desired direction.
This is the issue under investigation
I can’t imagine anything convincing. Similarly, I don’t find an argument “if one of the Hitler assassination attempts were successful, would be avoided” compelling. Not to say that one should not have tried to assassinate him at the time, given the information available. But a valid reason to carry out such an assassination attempt would have to be something near-term and high-confidence, like reducing the odds of further poor military decisions or something.
What about policies to reduce hydrofluorocarbons emissions that would otherwise deplete the ozone layer?
This is close to my current position, but I would update if I learned that there’s a non-negligible chance of AGI within the next 20 years.
This is the issue under investigation
What about policies to reduce hydrofluorocarbons emissions that would otherwise deplete the ozone layer?
Well, there is no need for any fancy counterfactual history there, the link was confirmed experimentally with high confidence.
Yes the Montreal Protocol, an extremely successful international treaty.