Neil Chilson: longtermism lets AI doomers dodge probability arguments
neil_chilson · x · 2026-09-20
A debate on the philosophical roots of AI safety: @mattyglesias argued that longtermism drove EA interest in AI safety, but nothing about AI policy hinges on the social discount rate — it's an intellectual history curiosity. Former FTC economist Neil Chilson countered that the longtermist argument is exactly what excuses the enormous emphasis on existential risk regardless of likelihood, letting doomers say the magnitude alone justifies prevention. Gabriel Weil replied few relevant people argue that way; Chilson added they do when asked to justify their p(doom).
Related event: Debate Erupts Over Longtermism's Grip on AI Safety Agenda(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- EA Community Erupts Over Philosopher's Argument That Insect Lives May Be Net Negative — teortaxesTex · 2026-09-20
- Beff Jezos: AI cannot be controlled by a Berkeley ideological cluster or committee — beffjezos · 2026-09-20
- Eric Schmidt: UIs will largely disappear as agents make 90% of web traffic non-human — rohanpaul_ai · 2026-09-20
- AI researcher argues humans' decorrelated skills beat AI at market-driven role matching — QuintinPope5 · 2026-09-20
- Luiza Jarovsky: AI won't kill all humans by 2030, but could destabilize global systems — AlexTensor · 2026-09-20
- Investor: personal AI assistants have arrived, generative streaming takes off in 2027 — annbordetsky · 2026-09-20