katydee comments on Existential Risk - Less Wrong

28 Post author: lukeprog 15 November 2011 02:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (108)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: katydee 16 November 2011 02:51:59AM 3 points [-]

I agree with your estimates/answers. There are certainly SL0 existential risks (most people in the US understand nuclear war), but I think the issue in question is that the risks most targeted by the "x-risks community" are above those levels-- asteroid strikes are SL2, nanotech is SL3, AI-foom is SL4. I think most people understand that x-risks are important in an abstract sense but have very limited understanding of what the risks the community is targeting actually represent.