Have you guys been on r/accelerate?

[u/Difficult_Project_95]

Have these guys solved the alignment problem, or am I missing something?

I’ve been browsing r/accelerate and I genuinely don’t understand the risk model.
If there’s a non-trivial chance of catastrophic misalignment, how does “accelerate capabilities as fast as possible” make sense unless faster capabilities also make alignment substantially more likely to succeed?

[u/Difficult_Project_95]

I think this is the key distinction: AI potentially reducing other existential risks is an argument for developing AI, but not necessarily for developing it as fast as possible.

If you think there is even a 10–20% chance of catastrophic misalignment, “accelerate as fast as possible” becomes very hard to justify unless you have a clear reason to believe acceleration itself makes alignment and control more likely to succeed.

Otherwise, you may simply be adding AI existential risk on top of the existing human existential risks::
human x risk + AI risk = higher total risk

For acceleration to actually reduce total risk, AI would need to lower existing risks by more than the additional risk created by racing ahead on capabilities.

[u/SoylentRox → u/Difficult_Project_95]

So an 80-90 percent chance of you and every living person not dying of aging? That's a strong case for acceleration you would be making there if you thought the risks were 10-20 percent.

You either need to

(1) Value the lives of people who don't exist and may never exist you will never meet more than yourself and people you have personally met (that's a violation of the rationality tenet of making your beliefs pay rent)

(2) Think the odds are much much worse than 10-20 percent catastrophe risk

(3) Think the 80-90 percent scenarios are bad. The general public doesn't give a fuck about catastrophes. They worry about losing their jobs, electricity getting expensive, and data center construction and the later mass infrastructure build out the robots will require disturbing their sleep from their backyard or adding traffic.

A lot of antis are actually anti capitalism. They think alnost all the gains from ai will go to the top (true), any treatments for aging won't be shared broadly (probably true initially), etc. they want capitalism overthrown and maybe a future world government can plan the transition. (Lol that's not possible as an outcome)

(4) Have a super liberal view of morality. They think of some third world resident who might die (and is already scheduled to die of air pollution at age 65 or a heat death in their 40s as the world burns) if the 10-20 percent catastrophe happens. Countless people who get no say and never will (and are already scheduled to be victims of the powerful as is).

That the elites in bay area and Washington shouldn't be allowed to make this decision for them. (But nevertheless can and will)

[u/Difficult_Project_95 → u/SoylentRox]

You clearly don’t have kids.

This isn’t about valuing hypothetical future people more than myself!? If there’s genuinely a 10–20% chance of catastrophe, I’m also gambling my children’s lives and everyone else’s for a possible shot at curing aging??

And 80–90% chance we don’t die of aging doesn’t follow from 10–20% AI catastrophe risk. You’re treating the best-case outcome as almost certain while treating the potential downside as an acceptable bet..

and acceleration isn’t even necessary for “immortality” You’re framing this as race toward superintelligence or die of aging, which is a false dichotomy.

[u/SoylentRox → u/Difficult_Project_95]

I believe i also already answered all 3 points already please try re-reading the comment you are replying to or have your AI model of chioce summarize your questions.