Um if you didn't happen to notice, killing everyone qualifies as "death" and is therefore out of bounds for reaching that particular ideal.
Out of bounds? The ideal in question ("Causing less suffering and death is good") doesn't seem to have specified any bounds. That's precisely the problem with this and indeed most forms of naive idealism. If you go and actually implement the ideal and throw away the far more complex and pragmatic restraints humans actually operate under you end up with something horrible. While all else being equal causing less suffering and death is good, actually optimizing for less suffering and death is a lost purpose.
Almost any optimizer with the goal "cause less suffering and death" that is capable of killing everyone (comparatively) painlesslessly will in fact choose to do so. (Because preventing death forever and is hard and not necessarily possible, depending on the details of physics.)
I was not talking about this in the context of building an optimizer. I was talking about this as a simple way to as humans gauge whether we had made ethical progress or not. I still think your specific concern about my specific ideal was not warranted:
Since killing everyone qualifies as "death" I don't see how it could possibly qualify as in-bounds as a method for reaching this particular ideal. Phrased differently, for instance as "Suffering and death are bad, let's eliminate them." the ideal could certainly lead to that. But I ph...
Ever since Eliezer, Yvain, and myself stopped posting regularly, LW's front page has mostly been populated by meta posts. (The Discussion section is still abuzz with interesting content, though, including original research.)
Luckily, many LWers are posting potentially front-page-worthy content to their own blogs.
Below are some recent-ish highlights outside Less Wrong, for your reading enjoyment. I've added an * to my personal favorites.
Overcoming Bias (Robin Hanson, Rob Wiblin, Katja Grace, Carl Shulman)