I don’t want to be nihilistic about your article but I stopped reading at the first paragraph because I disagree (along with others) on the most important thing: it doesn’t matter if risk can’t be proved. Since it’s something unknown and the risk is unknown and the risk includes possible annihilation because of the prior of intelligence in nature annihilating other species then → the opposite needs to be proven. Safety. So any argument about risk arguments being wrong is an error in itself.
It’s not two things, risk versus safety, it’s three things: existential risk versus sub-existential risk versus no risk. Sub existential risk is the most likely on the priors.
I think the fact that we have extinguished species is a binary outcome that supports my argument. Why would it be a count of how many? The fact alone says that we can be exterminated.
I don’t want to be nihilistic about your article but I stopped reading at the first paragraph because I disagree (along with others) on the most important thing: it doesn’t matter if risk can’t be proved. Since it’s something unknown and the risk is unknown and the risk includes possible annihilation because of the prior of intelligence in nature annihilating other species then → the opposite needs to be proven. Safety. So any argument about risk arguments being wrong is an error in itself.
It’s not two things, risk versus safety, it’s three things: existential risk versus sub-existential risk versus no risk. Sub existential risk is the most likely on the priors.
can you explain why sub is the most likely since humans have made exticts thousands of animal species? not semi-extinct. We made them 100% extinct.
That argument doesn’t work well.in its own terms: we have extinguished far fewer species than we have not.
I think the fact that we have extinguished species is a binary outcome that supports my argument. Why would it be a count of how many? The fact alone says that we can be exterminated.
The issue is what is likeliest, not what is possible.