See the 5th post, where I talk about possibly delegating to governments, which would have a similar (or even stronger) such effect.
I think this illuminates two possible cruxes that could explain any disagreement here:
One’s level of comfort with having some AI Benefactor implement QALY maximization instead of a less controversial program of Benefits
Whether and how strategic considerations should be addressed via Benefits planning
On (1), while on an object-level I like QALY maximization, having a very large and powerful AI Benefactor unilaterally implement that as the global order seems suboptimal to me.
On (2), I generally think strategic considerations should be addressed elsewhere for classic gains from specialization reasons, but thinking about how certain Benefits plans will be perceived and received globally, including by powerful actors, is an important aspect of legitimacy that can’t be fully segregated.
If you really want to reduce the risk of adverse government reaction, don’t target the most needy and vulnerable, target the swing voter.
See the 5th post, where I talk about possibly delegating to governments, which would have a similar (or even stronger) such effect.
I think this illuminates two possible cruxes that could explain any disagreement here:
One’s level of comfort with having some AI Benefactor implement QALY maximization instead of a less controversial program of Benefits
Whether and how strategic considerations should be addressed via Benefits planning
On (1), while on an object-level I like QALY maximization, having a very large and powerful AI Benefactor unilaterally implement that as the global order seems suboptimal to me. On (2), I generally think strategic considerations should be addressed elsewhere for classic gains from specialization reasons, but thinking about how certain Benefits plans will be perceived and received globally, including by powerful actors, is an important aspect of legitimacy that can’t be fully segregated.