Agreed. I know lots of EAs who were into intellectually engrossing subjects (particle physics, pure math, theoretical CS, etc) who switched to other subjects because they're likely more important to real-world outcomes. Bryan is underestimating the risk from superhuman AI, and therefore incorrectly dismissing it for being bizarre.
Those are all tiny concerns even among legal issues. Whether or not the J6 people have legal defendants is a small issue compared to basically any debates about whether certain laws, like drug laws, are unjust.
Note that considering these topics seriously doesn't necessarily mean accepting the whole package. I've accepted some EA perspectives and rejected others.
-On AI, I'm fairly convinced that it's a major area of concern.
-On other existential risks, my research led me to become less concerned than many members of the public are. Though I'm glad some people are working on existential risk issues, they're not a huge deal.
-On welfare for shrimp, EAs led me to confront my beliefs on animal welfare, and in the end I decided animal welfare is a mistaken concept entirely! I've completely rejected the concept of animals as having intrinsic moral weight. Though as I'm not a fanatic, I do refrain from advocating for policies that would be particularly disastrous in the case that I'm wrong.
Agreed. I know lots of EAs who were into intellectually engrossing subjects (particle physics, pure math, theoretical CS, etc) who switched to other subjects because they're likely more important to real-world outcomes. Bryan is underestimating the risk from superhuman AI, and therefore incorrectly dismissing it for being bizarre.
Diversity is good here. I scoff at AI danger, but I don't really know much about it. What little I know convinces me it's harmless. Even if I'm wrong, tho, it's not worthwhile for me to study up on that subject when I'm already so good at law and strategy and there are so many needs there, e.g. J6 defendants without adequate legal counsel, and cases like https://www.rasmusen.org/rasmapedia/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_Plea_Bargain#Court_Documents and https://www.rasmusen.org/rasmapedia/index.php?title=SpeechFirst_University_Database_cases#Articles_on_Student_Surveillance_Systems
or even the sad state of the Monroe County Republican Party.
Those are all tiny concerns even among legal issues. Whether or not the J6 people have legal defendants is a small issue compared to basically any debates about whether certain laws, like drug laws, are unjust.
Note that considering these topics seriously doesn't necessarily mean accepting the whole package. I've accepted some EA perspectives and rejected others.
-On AI, I'm fairly convinced that it's a major area of concern.
-On other existential risks, my research led me to become less concerned than many members of the public are. Though I'm glad some people are working on existential risk issues, they're not a huge deal.
-On welfare for shrimp, EAs led me to confront my beliefs on animal welfare, and in the end I decided animal welfare is a mistaken concept entirely! I've completely rejected the concept of animals as having intrinsic moral weight. Though as I'm not a fanatic, I do refrain from advocating for policies that would be particularly disastrous in the case that I'm wrong.