We are not prepared to win

TL;DR: It would be nice to survive for a long time and be happy about it. It doesn't look like we'll be happy about it right now. We should change that by putting more effort into making sure we'll be happy about it.

Some [LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] believe that AI is likely to cause the apocalypse

[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] also consider the effects of living with well-developed, non-apocalyptic AI, likely or notAI will [very probably, obviously] have extreme economic effects barring an apocalypseArguably the current state of the stock market is a present-tense effectMass unemployment would be in the question, with horrible knock-on effectsAI will maybe give individual people much more power than they otherwise would haveFor both good and bad causes. E.g. curing a disease, creating a bioweaponThis seems to be a more volatile world to live inAI will make the world very different and thus hard for John Doe to plan for

AI will maybe give individual people much more power than they otherwise would haveFor both good and bad causes. E.g. curing a disease, creating a bioweaponThis seems to be a more volatile world to live in

For both good and bad causes. E.g. curing a disease, creating a bioweapon

[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] have built incredible infrastructure for the purpose of preventing an AI apocalypseCommunity figureheads have build an impressive recruiting pipelineRecruits are generally smart and/or open-minded people capable of engaging with complex problems effectivelyCommunity figureheads have generally done well to draw recruits focus to preventing an AI apocalypseThe recruits generally do okay at preventing an AI apocalypse[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] are doing their best to influence policy[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] are taking up jobs that put them in a position to change the trajectory of the future with respect to AI safetyThis is generally good and makes sense:Community figureheads believe (or appear to believe) that there is a significant risk of the AI apocalypseCommunity figureheads have done well to direct resources to preventing that because, if it occurs, game overYay

The recruits generally do okay at preventing an AI apocalypse[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] are doing their best to influence policy[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] are taking up jobs that put them in a position to change the trajectory of the future with respect to AI safety

[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] are doing their best to influence policy

[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] are taking up jobs that put them in a position to change the trajectory of the future with respect to AI safety

[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] have built comparatively weak infrastructure for preventing the negative consequences of otherwise Good AIThis is not to say that no work has been done in this area. Indeed, it is still somewhat in focus for [LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] See:Eliezer Yudkowsky's 2013 "Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ"The 2024 AI Safety Camp's "The Future of Work: How Can Policymakers Prepare for AI's Impact on Labor Markets?"The highlighted Labor Automation Forecasting Hub over at MetaculusBut these efforts, both in quantity and quality, are far and away overshadowed by the efforts made to affect AI safety and related policyPerhaps by a factor of 10x or 100x (bullshit numbers)Efforts active in this space also tend to lack clear direction[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] can forecast displacement statistics, so they know roughly how much humanity will need to adapt to the future landscapeBut [LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] do not know what [efficiently, least-painfully] adapting looks like[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] also do not appear to have a huge repertoire of ideas on shaping a non-apocalypse environment to need less adaptationThe options apparent are also not necessarily desirable

This is not to say that no work has been done in this area. Indeed, it is still somewhat in focus for [LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] See:Eliezer Yudkowsky's 2013 "Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ"The 2024 AI Safety Camp's "The Future of Work: How Can Policymakers Prepare for AI's Impact on Labor Markets?"The highlighted Labor Automation Forecasting Hub over at Metaculus

The 2024 AI Safety Camp's "The Future of Work: How Can Policymakers Prepare for AI's Impact on Labor Markets?"

Efforts active in this space also tend to lack clear direction[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] can forecast displacement statistics, so they know roughly how much humanity will need to adapt to the future landscapeBut [LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] do not know what [efficiently, least-painfully] adapting looks like[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] also do not appear to have a huge repertoire of ideas on shaping a non-apocalypse environment to need less adaptationThe options apparent are also not necessarily desirable

[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] can forecast displacement statistics, so they know roughly how much humanity will need to adapt to the future landscape

But [LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] do not know what [efficiently, least-painfully] adapting looks like

[LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] also do not appear to have a huge repertoire of ideas on shaping a non-apocalypse environment to need less adaptationThe options apparent are also not necessarily desirable

The bias towards Survival First makes senseBut perhaps [LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] have biased their efforts too stronglyIt would be nice to both survive and be happy about it

But perhaps [LessWrongers, Rationalists, etc.] have biased their efforts too strongly