Isn’t this just a statement that you disagree either with the relative probability of an AI-related disaster or the relative degree of harm it could cause?
It seems harsh to say it’s “morally repugnant” when in the end you’re just saying the way you assign probabilities and degrees of negative outcomes would lead you to invest in a different portfolio of charities or efforts than what this other group would do.
(I’m not arguing for or against the correctness of a belief that AI poses attention- and funding-worthy threats. Only that these other people motivated to allocate resources to it have studied the problem in great detail and their sincere belief after looking into it is that it is worth being part of the overall portfolio of charity investment, and this really would (in their sincere judgment) mitigate big-scale harm, no different than fundamental research into global warming or drug-resistant bacteria, regardless of whether lay people can more easily envision the types of harm from those other threats.
It seems harsh to say it’s “morally repugnant” when in the end you’re just saying the way you assign probabilities and degrees of negative outcomes would lead you to invest in a different portfolio of charities or efforts than what this other group would do.
(I’m not arguing for or against the correctness of a belief that AI poses attention- and funding-worthy threats. Only that these other people motivated to allocate resources to it have studied the problem in great detail and their sincere belief after looking into it is that it is worth being part of the overall portfolio of charity investment, and this really would (in their sincere judgment) mitigate big-scale harm, no different than fundamental research into global warming or drug-resistant bacteria, regardless of whether lay people can more easily envision the types of harm from those other threats.