Debate: utilitarianism doesn't justify lawbreaking — bounded agents and AI x-risk 'bullet-biters'
NathanpmYoung · x · 2026-10-17
NathanpmYoung pushes back on the common claim that 'if you were a utilitarian, you would do all the illegal things to maximise good.' He argues a real utilitarian would accept being a flawed, bounded decision-maker and wouldn't lurch into unilateralism. The quoted post warns that while most EAs avoid biting the bullet on action-vs-inaction equivalence, history shows insane cults, several AI x-risk-related terrorism instances, and FTX — so the number of bullet-biters isn't zero. A substantive AI-safety-adjacent ethics debate.
More from AGI Musings
- AI could create 500,000-2 million novel jobs, from robot trainers to AI perfumers — asusarla · 2026-10-17
- Andriy Burkov: the only gap between open-weight and frontier models is data quality — burkov · 2026-10-17
- brianryhuang: RL system and infra design is just one of many moats I can allude to — brianryhuang · 2026-10-17
- From inference to execution: firms closest to the work will capture AI's next economy — rhythmrg · 2026-10-17
- Pedro Domingos: 'The era of computers being needlessly stupid is over' — pmddomingos · 2026-10-17
- Turing Award winner Patterson: ordinary people will access SI models by year's end — davidpattersonx · 2026-10-17