alt Hacker NewsThat's just applying Pascal's wager, and you can argue for or against any action that way if some fanciful extreme hypothesis of infinite harm is treated as serious.
That's just applying Pascal's wager, and you can argue for or against any action that way if some fanciful extreme hypothesis of infinite harm is treated as serious.
But I'm not claiming infinite harm with infinitesimal chances. I'm talking about finite harms with what seem to me to be non-zero chances. That makes it normal cost-benefit/risk analysis.
If you're trying to argue that the chances of a non-human source of greater than human intelligence having different goals than us is infinitesimally small, then I'd be interested in what arguments you have to back that up.