the vast majority of the improbable-position-of-leverage in any x-risk reduction effort comes from being an Earthling in a position to affect the future of a hundred billion galaxies,
Why does “Earthling” imply sufficient evidence for the rest of this (given a leverage adjustment)? Don’t we have independent reason to think otherwise, eg the Great Filter argument?
Mind you, the recent MIRI math paper and follow-up seem (on their face) to disprove some clever reasons for calling seed AGI actually impossible and thereby rejecting a scenario in which Earth will “affect the future of a hundred billion galaxies”. There may be a lesson there.
Why does “Earthling” imply sufficient evidence for the rest of this (given a leverage adjustment)? Don’t we have independent reason to think otherwise, eg the Great Filter argument?
Mind you, the recent MIRI math paper and follow-up seem (on their face) to disprove some clever reasons for calling seed AGI actually impossible and thereby rejecting a scenario in which Earth will “affect the future of a hundred billion galaxies”. There may be a lesson there.