you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

I think this is called the "relative privation" fallacy -- it is a false choice. The threat they're concerned about is human extinction or dystopian lock-in. Even if the probability is low, this is worth discussing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Relative privation is when someone dismisses or minimizes a problem simply because worse problems exist: "You can't complain about X when Y exists."

    I'm talking about the practical reality that you must prioritize among legitimate problems. If you're marooned at sea in a sinking ship you need to repair the hull before you try to fix the engines in order to get home.

    It's perfectly valid to say "I can't focus on everything so I will focus on the things that provide the biggest and most tangible improvement to my situation first". It's fallacious to say "Because worse things exist, AGI concerns doesn't matter."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    and not only that. in your example of choosing to address the hull first over the engine, the engine problem is actually prescient. when taking time to debate about AGI, it is to debate a hypothetical future problem over real current problems that actually exist and aren't getting enough attention to be resolved. and if we can't address those, why do we think we'll be able to figure out the problems of AGI?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The rephrase it as a short(ish) metaphor:

    • It would be like you’re marooned at sea in a sinking ship and choose to address the risk of not having a good place to anchor when you get to the harbour instead of repairing the hull.
  • source
  • parent