3 ms·
While I mostly agree with your sentiment, the subject is "existential risk" and the species won't necessarily end if most humans are no longer employable. Of co
by TheBlight 3y ago
While I mostly agree with your sentiment, the subject is "existential risk" and the species won't necessarily end if most humans are no longer employable. Of course, the impacts could very well be devastating.
- sigmoid10 3y agoDepends on whether you're talking about civilisation or the species. Killing modern civilisation is comparatively simple and wouldn't even need a superintelligent actor. But it still amounts to an existential risk for billions of people who can no longer be sustained.
- janalsncm 3y agoExactly. It doesn’t make much difference to a guy (whose family is starving to death because his potato crop on an unincorporated 5x5 plot of land behind Walmart failed) if a group of trillionaires is able to survive on Mars or not.
- cratermoon 3y agoExcept, according to the TESCREAL[1] line, "existential risk" does mean the end of species. In their argument, the species -- human abilities -- is the important thing to preserve, and it doesn't matter if 99% of all humans die. In this view, whatever is necessary to preserve the species is OK, individuals don't matter. Of course, they all believe that THEY will be in the few that survive. 1 https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-acronym-behind-our-wildest-ai-dreams-and-nightmares/ https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-acronym-behind-our-wil...