This reads like a call to violence for anyone who is consequentialist.
It’s saying that either you make a rogue AI “that kills lots of people and is barely contained”, or unfriendly AGI happens and everyone dies. I think the conclusion is meant to be “and therefore you shouldn’t be consequentalist” and not “and therefore you should make a rogue AI”, but it’s not entirely clear?
And I don’t think the “either” statement holds because it’s ignoring other options, and ignoring the high chance the rogue AI isn’t contained. So you end up with “a poor argument, possibly in favor of making a rogue AI”, which seems optimized to get downvotes from this community.
No it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be consequentialist. I’m challenging people to point out the flaw in the argument.
If you find the argument persuasive, and think the ability to “push the fat man” (without getting LW tangled up in the investigation) might be a resource worth keeping, the correct action to take is not to comment, and perhaps to downvote.
This reads like a call to violence for anyone who is consequentialist.
It’s saying that either you make a rogue AI “that kills lots of people and is barely contained”, or unfriendly AGI happens and everyone dies. I think the conclusion is meant to be “and therefore you shouldn’t be consequentalist” and not “and therefore you should make a rogue AI”, but it’s not entirely clear?
And I don’t think the “either” statement holds because it’s ignoring other options, and ignoring the high chance the rogue AI isn’t contained. So you end up with “a poor argument, possibly in favor of making a rogue AI”, which seems optimized to get downvotes from this community.
No it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be consequentialist. I’m challenging people to point out the flaw in the argument.
If you find the argument persuasive, and think the ability to “push the fat man” (without getting LW tangled up in the investigation) might be a resource worth keeping, the correct action to take is not to comment, and perhaps to downvote.