That is not a controversial thing to say.

> The background level of extinction known from the fossil record is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, not just the large vertebrates we are most familiar with). In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone.

> The typical rate of extinction differs for different groups of organisms. Mammals, for instance, have an average species "lifespan" from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years. There are about 5,000 known mammalian species alive at present. Given the average species lifespan for mammals, the background extinction rate for this group would be approximately one species lost every 200 years. Of course, this is an average rate -- the actual pattern of mammalian extinctions is likely to be somewhat uneven. Some centuries might see more than one mammalian extinction, and conversely, sometimes several centuries might pass without the loss of any mammal species.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html

It can of course be summarized in the words "nothing lasts forever".

And as to why it would apply in the future - entropy.

Every species goes extinct eventually. Some sooner than others.

Ah, sorry, I thought you were a pragmatist, but you are just a vatnik repeating Putin's talking points.

> even from a non-longtermism standpoint he's still right though. How about the risk of nuclear war killing billions of the current population?

Well, the issue is that Putin may kill you if you don't stop him where he is. The example being Hitler of course.

If you appease bullies they become more confident, until someone actually stops them.

If you think that is completely unrealistic, places like Lithuania do not, and remember the whole of Eastern Europe remembers being under occupation by the USSR.

> assuming constant population size

There is really no reason to assume this. The fact that our population is set to peak suggests decline in the future.

> I am prioritizing humanity as a collective super organism not as a group of individual organisms.

That's your choice. There no real imperative for that.

Why should I or anyone else care about the survival of "humanity"? It's just a concept.

> The future will exist so better it be one with humans in it than not.

This is neither here nor there for living people. Your actual life will not be measurably improved by people 1000 years from now living the star trek future.

> Also the fact that there will be exponentially more humans in the future than in the past.

If you look at population curves, you can't actually guarantee that. Bayesian logic and the mediocrity principle suggest you are living in the most populated time currently, and in the future, there will be fewer or fewer people, and certainly not quintillions, else why are you one of the very special first 100 billion?

Like I said, it's not justified to make the lives of living people worse to improve the lives of unborn people. We don't owe anything to the future, particularly if, as increasingly is the case, people chose not to have children or have children at below the replacement rate.

I don't think Longtermism is the same as utilitarianism, as believers in Longtermism believe they can guarantee that the future is better, if they can only control the present, so more people is automatically better.

Their overconfidence is the issue.

Lots of people think Musk is just conspiring with China and Russia for money, but I think the real problem is longtermism, which means Musk is prepared to sacrifice millions of Ukraine today to prevent the low risk of nuclear war killing trillions of future people spread around the stars.

While there is a logic to it, I don't think potential people have any rights, and the interest of actual living people outweigh potential future people, else banning contraception would be justified also.

You could potentially make methane from atmospheric CO2.

I doubt this optimization will give LLM the ability to do formal symbolic thinking.

Of course I am not sure humans can do formal symbolic thinking either.

You are wasting my time.

Like I said, I am sure many people have tried, in detail, to explain to you the risks due to ASI, but I am sure you did not want to hear.

I am happy to attempt once again, but I am sure it will be a complete waste of both of our time.

I am actually sure you will agree that this is true.

There are no-one as deaf as those who will not hear - Buddha.

> When some chicken little comes across decrying that AI will control everything, you ask them what they mean by everything. Their theory then falls apart because they can't figure out how to explain how industries, departments, infrastructure, finance, military, medical, and so on are strung together in a way that would allow for anyone to network globally.

I bet people tell you all the time, and you just don't believe them lol.

I saw an interesting statistic today which says there were 20,000 papers on climate change, but only 600 papers on low-carbon steel production with hydrogen, despite steel production being 30% of industrial CO2 release.

Maybe we need to be much more focussed on finding high-impact solutions.

Money is something humans use. When the robots run the mines and the foundries, and the factories it's not really needed anymore.

They fail because they are too expensive in terms of human power. Without the humans they are much more plausible.

Yes, because you could create automated factories to mine minerals, create solar panels and power carbon sequestration machines powered by solar power.

You could also have AGIs pilot planes which spread salt into the stratosphere etc.

>> “Salient Energy says its zinc-ion batteries are the solution to all those issues. They use no lithium, no cobalt, and no nickel. The zinc and manganese are obtained from North American sources. Furthermore, the risk of fire is eliminated. The manufacturing process emits 66% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the process that makes lithium-ion batteries. And oh, yeah, they cost less as well. What’s not to like?”

>That’s all well and good, but the devil could be in the details. For example, a rechargeable energy storage system would be not likeable if it eliminated fire risks but took days to recharge, or lost capacity after only a few dozen charging cycles.

>> Apparently, Salient has that all figured out. The company pledges the same “power, footprint, and service life as lithium-ion based systems.”

I found an interesting article about them here actually.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automobiles/China-EV-teardown-A-4-500-alternative-to-walking

Some-one said something very telling the other day - that these micro-EVs are still safer than bicycles.

(Interestingly those microEVs are made by GM)

The answer is China. They have EVs there from $5,000 to $150,000 and it's around 30% market share there.

Chinese EVs are about to invade Europe en masse.