Human contribution to per-capita wealth should be approximately zero post-AGI, so I don’t fully agree with the last part. But I still agree that repugnant conclusion arguments smuggle in a resource assumption.
It has always bothered me that people assume that the “repugnant conclusion,” perhaps because of the name, must actually be the conclusion of total utilitarianism. But it just isn’t—it’s only the conclusion of total utilitarianism in crazy hypotheticals that assume that making people happier is extremely resource intense relative to supporting new people.
Human contribution to per-capita wealth should be approximately zero post-AGI, so I don’t fully agree with the last part. But I still agree that repugnant conclusion arguments smuggle in a resource assumption.
It has always bothered me that people assume that the “repugnant conclusion,” perhaps because of the name, must actually be the conclusion of total utilitarianism. But it just isn’t—it’s only the conclusion of total utilitarianism in crazy hypotheticals that assume that making people happier is extremely resource intense relative to supporting new people.