= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lavalamp comments on Q&A with Richard Carrier on risks from AI - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (22)
I... really don't see how this can be justified.
It is extraordinary. Even if you set aside the kinds of existential risks we tend to discuss here, several experts on climate change (eg James Hansen) consider runaway global warming sufficient to destroy all life on Earth a real risk.
Climate gurus often get funding by being alarmist, though. Thay want to get paid so they can save the world - but first the world must be at risk. Thus all the climate scaremongering. It's a real problem.
If they don't really believe that the world is at risk, why aren't they getting paid more doing something else?
I didn't mean to suggest that they don't believe in what they are saying.
As far as I understand the phenomenon, DOOM-sayers are normally perfectly sincere.
Check out the The End of The World Cult for example. The prophets of DOOM are not kidding.