I think some people may be misinterpreting you as believing this because many people understand your advocacy as implying “UFAI is the biggest baddest existential risk we need to deal with”.
It is; I don’t particularly think the answer to the Great Filter is a Bigger Threat that comes after this. There’s a possibility that most species like ours happen to be inside the volume of some earlier species’s “F”AI’s enforced Prime Directive with a restriction threshold (species are allowed to get as far as ours, but are not allowed to colonize galaxies) but if so I’m not sure what our own civilization ought to do about that. I suspect, and certainly hope, that there’s actually a hidden rarity factor.
But I do think some fallacy of the form, “This argument would make UFAI more threatening—therefore UFAI-fearers must endorse it—but the argument is wrong, ha ha!” might have occurred.
But I do think some fallacy of the form, “This argument would make UFAI more threatening—therefore UFAI-fearers must endorse it—but the argument is wrong, ha ha!” might have occurred.
I think this is it. However, there are at least a few enthusiasts, even if they are relatively peripheral, who do tend to engage in such indiscriminate argument. Sort of like internet skeptics who confabulate wrong arguments for true skeptical conclusions in the course of comment thread combat that the scientists they are citing would not endorse.
It is; I don’t particularly think the answer to the Great Filter is a Bigger Threat that comes after this. There’s a possibility that most species like ours happen to be inside the volume of some earlier species’s “F”AI’s enforced Prime Directive with a restriction threshold (species are allowed to get as far as ours, but are not allowed to colonize galaxies) but if so I’m not sure what our own civilization ought to do about that. I suspect, and certainly hope, that there’s actually a hidden rarity factor.
But I do think some fallacy of the form, “This argument would make UFAI more threatening—therefore UFAI-fearers must endorse it—but the argument is wrong, ha ha!” might have occurred.
I think this is it. However, there are at least a few enthusiasts, even if they are relatively peripheral, who do tend to engage in such indiscriminate argument. Sort of like internet skeptics who confabulate wrong arguments for true skeptical conclusions in the course of comment thread combat that the scientists they are citing would not endorse.