[medvezhenok]

One of the other concerns (apart from safety) is the job displacement aspect - if AI displaces too many workers too fast, that could spark a worldwide conflict (some speculate that similar automation pushes laid the groundwork for WWI and WWII).

So there is a benefit beyond just AGI safety.

[int_19h]

This problem has a much better solution than blocking technical progress: UBI etc.

But, yeah, I can totally believe that our elites would prefer a solution that doesn't require a major reconfiguration of the economic system from which they benefit so much.

[biscottigelato]

Job displacement is a silly problem compared to the AI Alignment problem. One is some human misery (but a lot of societal benefit to other groups of humans at the same time).

The other one is all of us, the entire species and the future of it, gets f'cked.

Its a distraction not even worth the noise.

[lanstin]

Not if it is a laid off biotech worker that goes mad and builds the GPT6 designed virus because his wife or kids died due to his loss of employment. We are safer, all of us, the entire species, when all the people feel the group is watching out for them and we are all in it together.

[mikepalmer]

One reason to discuss job displacement is that otherwise you sound like a nutcase ("we're all going to die!")... which causes most people to dismiss you out of hand. If you talk about job loss, more people see something plausible, concrete, short term, effecting them directly, etc. You can get engagement from more people. Then you can introduce the real problem of, like, human extinction.

[antondd]

No it’s not a silly problem. Assigning a subjective probability to some world-ending scenario does not somehow make all other concerns invalid.