The first quote says human values have changed and that the core of our values is robust to radical, catastrophic change.
The second quote says that human values have changed and that some future changes would be okay, and it states that there are greater risks to human values in accepting a global entity responsible for protecting against value changes due to AGI.
Glossing those two quotes as being analogous to, and as equally irrational as, standard deathism seems like a deliberate misreading, and using the name ‘value deathism’ seems pretty suspect to me, for whatever that’s worth.
The first quote says human values have changed and that the core of our values is robust to radical, catastrophic change.
The second quote says that human values have changed and that some future changes would be okay, and it states that there are greater risks to human values in accepting a global entity responsible for protecting against value changes due to AGI.
Glossing those two quotes as being analogous to, and as equally irrational as, standard deathism seems like a deliberate misreading, and using the name ‘value deathism’ seems pretty suspect to me, for whatever that’s worth.