Taking AI risk seriously doesn't require being an EA, argues rSanti97
nwilliams030 · x · 2026-09-22
rSanti97 argues that taking AI risks seriously requires neither EA nor longtermist commitments, while acknowledging why AI safety critics latch onto EA: like every internet-grown ideology, it can be deeply annoying. In a follow-up he contends that framing a specific philosophical stance as a "sensible reference group" is exactly what enrages critics, noting the online EAs making such arguments tend to be 25 or younger.
More from AGI Musings
- Investor: Agentic AI Ease of Use Just Crossed the Tipping Point for Mass Adoption — zephyr_z9 · 2026-09-22
- EA writer responds to critics: status is a universal currency, EAs aren't immune — AndyMasley · 2026-09-22
- OpenAI's 24-day-old internal model reportedly solved 100+ open math problems — IgorCarron · 2026-09-22
- Dev laments tech community decline: HN and Lobsters 'a shadow of what they used to be' — zetalyrae · 2026-09-22
- Nathan Young: CEA's Handling of the Bostrom Controversy Was the Wrong Call — NathanpmYoung · 2026-09-22
- "I really hate the Chinese Room": poster calls out infamous philosophy argument — AndyMasley · 2026-09-22