• danzania@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I think this is called the “relative privation” fallacy – it is a false choice. The threat they’re concerned about is human extinction or dystopian lock-in. Even if the probability is low, this is worth discussing.

    • ErmahgherdDavid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Relative privation is when someone dismisses or minimizes a problem simply because worse problems exist: “You can’t complain about X when Y exists.”

      I’m talking about the practical reality that you must prioritize among legitimate problems. If you’re marooned at sea in a sinking ship you need to repair the hull before you try to fix the engines in order to get home.

      It’s perfectly valid to say “I can’t focus on everything so I will focus on the things that provide the biggest and most tangible improvement to my situation first”. It’s fallacious to say “Because worse things exist, AGI concerns doesn’t matter.”

      • niartenyaw@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        and not only that. in your example of choosing to address the hull first over the engine, the engine problem is actually prescient. when taking time to debate about AGI, it is to debate a hypothetical future problem over real current problems that actually exist and aren’t getting enough attention to be resolved. and if we can’t address those, why do we think we’ll be able to figure out the problems of AGI?