zlacker

> When they start talking about the utility of committing crimes or other moral wrongs because the ends justify the means, I tend to start assuming they’re bad at morality and ethics.

Extremely reasonable position, and I'm glad that every time some idiot brings it up in the EA forum comments section they get overwhelmingly downvoted, because most EAs aren't idiots in that particular way.

I have no idea what the rest of your comment is talking about; EAs that have opinions about AI largely think that we should be slowing it down rather than speeding it up.

>>comp_t+(OP)
In some sense I see a direct line between the EA argument being presented here, and the SBF consequentialist argument where he talks about being willing to flip a coin if it had a 50% chance to destroy the world and a 50% chance to make the world more than twice as good.

I did try to cabin my arguments to Effective Altrusts that are making ends justify the means arguments. I really don’t have a problem with people that are attempting to use EA to decide between multiple good outcomes.

I’m definitely not engaged enough with the Effective Altrusits to know where the plurality of thought lies, so I was trying to respond in the context of this argument being put forward on behalf of Effective Altruists.

The only part I’d say applies to all EA, is the brand taint that SBF has done in the public perception.

>>comp_t+(OP)
The speed doesn't really matter if their end goal is morally wrong. A slower speed might give them an advantage to not overshoot and get backlash or it gives artists and the public more time to fight back against EA, but it doesn't hide their ill intentions.