
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Bostrom's Maxipok principle suggests reducing existential risk should be the overwhelming focus for those looking to improve humanity's long-term prospects. This rests on an implicitly dichotomous view of future value, where most outcomes are either near-worthless or near-best.
We argue against the dichotomous view, and against Maxipok. In the coming century, values, institutions, and power distributions could become locked-in. But we could influence what gets locked-in, and when and whether it happens at all—so it is possible to substantially improve the long-term future by channels other than reducing existential risk.
And this is a fairly big deal: both because Maxipok could mean leaving value on the table, and in some cases because following Maxipok could actually do harm.
This is a summary of “Beyond Existential Risk”, by Will MacAskill and Guive Assadi. The full version is available on our website.
Defining Maxipok
Picture a future where some worry that terrorist groups could use advanced bioweapons to wipe out humanity. The world's governments could coalesce into a strong world government that would reduce the extinction risk from 1% to 0%, or maintain the status quo. But the world government would lock in authoritarian control and undermine [...]
---
Outline:
(01:10) Defining Maxipok
(02:30) Is future value all-or-nothing?
(03:33) The case for Dichotomy
(06:55) The case against Dichotomy
(08:34) Non-existential interventions can persist
(11:26) So what?
---
First published:
Source:
Linkpost URL:
https://www.forethought.org/research/beyond-existential-risk
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
Images from the article:
Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.
By EA Forum TeamBostrom's Maxipok principle suggests reducing existential risk should be the overwhelming focus for those looking to improve humanity's long-term prospects. This rests on an implicitly dichotomous view of future value, where most outcomes are either near-worthless or near-best.
We argue against the dichotomous view, and against Maxipok. In the coming century, values, institutions, and power distributions could become locked-in. But we could influence what gets locked-in, and when and whether it happens at all—so it is possible to substantially improve the long-term future by channels other than reducing existential risk.
And this is a fairly big deal: both because Maxipok could mean leaving value on the table, and in some cases because following Maxipok could actually do harm.
This is a summary of “Beyond Existential Risk”, by Will MacAskill and Guive Assadi. The full version is available on our website.
Defining Maxipok
Picture a future where some worry that terrorist groups could use advanced bioweapons to wipe out humanity. The world's governments could coalesce into a strong world government that would reduce the extinction risk from 1% to 0%, or maintain the status quo. But the world government would lock in authoritarian control and undermine [...]
---
Outline:
(01:10) Defining Maxipok
(02:30) Is future value all-or-nothing?
(03:33) The case for Dichotomy
(06:55) The case against Dichotomy
(08:34) Non-existential interventions can persist
(11:26) So what?
---
First published:
Source:
Linkpost URL:
https://www.forethought.org/research/beyond-existential-risk
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
Images from the article:
Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.