Disempowerment is on the fence, gets interpreted as either implying human extinction or being a good place. "Doom" tends to be ambiguous between disempowerment and extinction, as well as about when that outcome must be gauged. And many people currently feel both disempowered and OK, so see eutopia as similar to disempowerment, neither an example of "doom".

Arguments pointing to risk of human extinction run into the issue of people expecting disempowerment without extinction, when some of the same arguments would remain relevant if applied directly to disempowerment (including the moral arguments about extinction or disempowerment being a problem). And arguments pointing to desirability of establishing eutopia run into the issue of people expecting disempowerment to be approximately as good and in practice much more likely. When the distinctions between these levels of doom are not maintained, conflation makes it harder to meaningfully disagree.

Eutopia Without Disempowerment

---

Outline:

(01:06) Eutopia Without Disempowerment

(02:13) Yudkowskys Arguments and Disempowerment

(02:52) Noncentral Fallacy of Doom

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.