[edanm]

> The problem comes is that many EA/Rationalist folks begin downplaying legitimate tangible risks on the horizon (I’ve had prominent EA folks tell me that Climate Change is not an existential risk) or that many of these AI Safety researchers actively ignore how to reduce harms of the AI we have deployed today.

I'm sure some people do this, and it's bad.

But to be clear, when you say some researchers are actively ignoring how to reduce harms of AI today... I'm not sure what you mean by "actively" ignore, but don't most researchers just by default ignore this, except for the few who are active in this field?

In other words, I think it's totally legit to focus on long-term AGI risk, and totally ignore current short-term AI risk, as a personal career-choice, just like it's ok to not even work on AI at all. Unless someone is actively trying to cause less resources to go into short-term AI risk, what's the problem?

> They’re talking about AGI, a hypothetical construct that we have no way of proving is even possible

I mean, we exist as (one would hope) intelligent beings. Why wouldn't AGI be possible? Your frame makes it seem like the default is that it isn't possible, which is wrong IMO.