Both.
And they seem definitely worthwhile relative to the cost imo. Even if the slowdown is just on the order of months, that seems desirable given many intelligence explosion + value lock-in scenarios.

In general I think there's probably relatively few who have considered the matter so intensely that they actually *feel* that a 90% p-doom means they'll die young.

I'm betting the vast majority of doomers are more characterized by being drawn to grand claims and cohesive social identity markers.

I would say both directions too, although if your sample is composed of rationalists, I doubt there would be many anti-safety concern hedgehogs. On this app there would be.

Yes, but probably even more so by Tetlock's hedgehog vs fox distinction.

I often have the feeling that the number of fascinating, reality-derived sci-fi stories is waaaaay under accounted for by actual film and literature.

Give me 5 minutes and I'll have a dozen greats, yet the same boring tropes appear again and again.

These needn't be very principled or consistent demands/choices, but they at least have to be present somewhat.

People may not object to factory farms very vociferously, but they would object if I tortured a pig in my basement.

I don't expect this, at least not for sentience. X-risk might get wrapped into general tech pessimism.

But I don't take seriously people's professed beliefs about AI sentience. If people either demand political action or make different personal choices, then I'll believe them.

You should take some tips from Dustin Moskowitz on here, he's apparently a master of stealth.

I mean, yes, they want that too. *"Good thing(s)"

My point is simply that meaningfulness isn't a uniquely precious state-provisioned good. Neither is equality for that matter. Insofar as policy levers allow, these can be traded off another without any loss in justice.

I think it is simply false that it's "more likely" to be a hindrance past some point.
Of no greater benefit, perhaps. But not that.

"Do you want {generic good thing}?"

I'd be convinced if most people actually preferred substantial pay cuts for more meaningful work. Emphasis on the *meaningfulness*, not less stressful/strenuous work.

Presumably they just factory farm humans.

I get that this is rhetoric and not thought out.

But that is clearly not the case in terms of private or public money, or in terms of popular opinion.

Ahhh I wish I did that, even once, let alone all the time!

Merely through speech or text? Or also image/video generation?

Presumably you don't include physical-world acts within this category, like blackmail or drugs?

You were missing the all important "also" so I interpreted this differently.

But ok fair enough👍

Yes but.

The phrase "intrinsic value" does not apply to ecological services. Insect control is great perhaps, but that's an instrumental anthropocentric good. Similar to preserving fish species for the sake of fishing stock.

For "intrinsic value" I direct you toward @sentientism.bsky.social

Took them long enough!

I suppose online art is "public" in a sense, but only because there is too massive of an overproduction of art for prices to be affixed.

This sounds kinda harsh, but old pizza in dumpsters is also a public *good*, at least according to the homeless.