As per title. I often talk to people that have views that I think should straightforwardly imply a larger focus on s-risk than they think. In particular, people often seem to endorse something like a rough symmetry between the goodness of good stuff and the badness of bad stuff, sometimes referring to this short post that offers some arguments in that direction. I'm confused by this and wanted to quickly jot down my thoughts - I won't try to make them rigorous and make various guesses for what additional assumptions people usually make. I might be wrong about those.

Views that IMO imply putting more weight on s-risk reduction:

Complexity of values: Some people think that the most valuable things possible are probably fairly complex (e.g. a mix of meaning, friendship, happiness, love, child-rearing, beauty etc.) instead of really simple (e.g. rats on heroin, what people usually [...]

The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
February 23rd, 2024

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zPsJECBYms5omXxfe/complexity-of-value-but-not-disvalue-implies-more-focus-on-s

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“Complexity of value but not disvalue implies more focus on s-risk. Moral uncertainty and preference utilitarianism also do.” by Chi Nguyen

LessWrong (30+ Karma)