Is it not obvious to you that this constitutes dying with less dignity, or is it obvious but you disagree that death with dignity is the correct way to go?
Dignity exists within human minds. If human-descended minds go extinct, dignity doesn’t matter. Nature grades us upon what happens, not how hard we try. There is no goal I hold greater than the preservation of humanity.
Did you read the OP post? The post identifies dignity with reductions in existential risk, and it talks a bunch about the ‘let’s violate ethical injunctions willy-nilly’ strategy
The post assumes that there are no ethics-violating strategies that will work. I understand that people can just-world-fallacy their way into thinking that they will be saved if only they sacrifice their deontology. What I’m saying is that deontology-violating strategies should be adopted if they offer, say, +1e-5 odds of success.
One of Eliezer’s points is that most people’s judgements about adding 1e-5 odds (I assume you mean log odds and not additive probability?) are wrong, and even systematically have the wrong sign.
The post talks about how most people are unable to evaluate these odds accurately, and that an indicator of you thinking you found a loophole actually being a sign that you are one of those people.
Is it not obvious to you that this constitutes dying with less dignity, or is it obvious but you disagree that death with dignity is the correct way to go?
Dignity exists within human minds. If human-descended minds go extinct, dignity doesn’t matter. Nature grades us upon what happens, not how hard we try. There is no goal I hold greater than the preservation of humanity.
Did you read the OP post? The post identifies dignity with reductions in existential risk, and it talks a bunch about the ‘let’s violate ethical injunctions willy-nilly’ strategy
The post assumes that there are no ethics-violating strategies that will work. I understand that people can just-world-fallacy their way into thinking that they will be saved if only they sacrifice their deontology. What I’m saying is that deontology-violating strategies should be adopted if they offer, say, +1e-5 odds of success.
One of Eliezer’s points is that most people’s judgements about adding 1e-5 odds (I assume you mean log odds and not additive probability?) are wrong, and even systematically have the wrong sign.
The post talks about how most people are unable to evaluate these odds accurately, and that an indicator of you thinking you found a loophole actually being a sign that you are one of those people.
Pretty telling IMHO to see such massive herding on the downvotes here, for such an obviously-correct point. Disappointing!