What happens once AI can design better AI, which can itself design better AI? Will we get an "intelligence explosion" where AI capabilities increase very rapidly? Tom Davidson, Rose Hadshar and I have a new paper out with analysis of these dynamics. Paper here, thread below!

forethought.org/research/three…

I have a new book out! "An Introduction to Utilitarianism", co-authored with Richard Chappell and Darius Meissner.

It all started in 2016: I was giving the introduction to ethics lectures at Oxford and I was frustrated by how utilitarianism was presented to students in introductory materials...

amazon.co.uk/Introduction-U… Utilitarianism would often be wholly misunderstood, or presented in naive and simplistic terms. The arguments in favour of utilitarianism, the rebuttals to criticisms, and the implications of the debate for moral methodology would all be neglected.

This is a thread of my thoughts and feelings about the actions that led to FTX’s bankruptcy, and the enormous harm that was caused as a result, involving the likely loss of many thousands of innocent people’s savings. Based on publicly available information, it seems to me more likely than not that senior leadership at FTX used customer deposits to bail out Alameda, despite terms of service prohibiting this, and a (later deleted) tweet from Sam claiming customer deposits are never invested.

Some people associate longtermism with a “tech-accelerationist” / prototypical Silicon Valley worldview.

But this is wrong: given the risks we face, endorsing longtermism implies being much *more cautious* about many new technologies… Many of the biggest threats to future generations are catastrophes that could be caused by technologies like synthetic biology and artificial intelligence. Often, longtermists favour regulating, slowing down, or banning dangerous new tech.

One common objection to longtermism is that it is just an “excuse” for not caring about the important problems of today’s world, instead focusing on speculative futurism.

I think this objection is badly misguided, for two reasons. 🧵 Longtermists think long-term, and act *now* — in practice, longtermists work on *present-day* problems that have long-term consequences, like pandemics, nuclear war, and risks from AI.

These actions benefit both the present generation *and* future generations.

Since its launch, What We Owe The Future has received its fair share of criticism. Here’s a thread expanding on some of the objections I think are most compelling 🧵 The first is just: what, exactly, follows from longtermism? Ok, sure, future generations are important and neglected, and we can help them — but given *all* the risks we face, what should we prioritise?

The New Yorker profile of me and effective altruism came out today. I’ve been looking forward to this day for months, and I loved reading Gideon Lewis-Kraus’ beautiful prose (even if I think I’m neither ‘reluctant’ nor a ‘prophet’!)

🧵

newyorker.com/magazine/2022/… Gideon spent ten days shadowing me for the article — 7 in Oxford and 3 in Berkeley. We had so many conversations. I felt very exposed! Though Gideon made every effort to make sure I was comfortable.

A great question! And by luck I have a new piece in @BBC_Future that answers exactly this…
bbc.com/future/article…

🧵

https://twitter.com/AlecStapp/status/1556700358935777282

I’ve written what I hope to be a one-stop explainer article on longtermism - about both the philosophy and the amazing work that people are actually doing: from pandemic prevention to ensuring the safety of advanced AI.

So, er, it seems that Elon Musk just tweeted about What We Owe The Future. Crazy times! You might wonder: Where do we agree and disagree? Here’s a thread.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1554335028313718784

Agreement: We both take seriously the sheer scale of the future that lies before us, and the sheer stakes involved when considering the challenges that could shape our future.

In What We Owe the Future, I advocate for concern about future people. Recently, I found out that John Stuart Mill got there over 200 years before me. And it turns out, weirdly, that we both thought a lot about coal. In 1886, John Stuart Mill gave a speech to Parliament about whether his generation should leave coal in the ground for the benefit of future generations. He referred to this as “The Coal Question”.

My new book, What We Owe The Future, is now available for pre-order!

It makes the case for longtermism, the view that positively affecting the long-run future is a key moral priority of our time.

Here's a thread about it...
🇬🇧oneworld-publications.com/what-we-owe-th…
🇺🇸basicbooks.com/titles/william… How would our priorities change if we truly took future lives as seriously as our own?

What We Owe The Future explores crucial questions about our long-term future, ranging from history to philosophy to economics to technology, such as:

My latest (academic) book, Moral Uncertainty, co-authored with @Tobyordoxford and Krister Bykvist, is out today! It’s open access - download it at moraluncertainty.com or order a hard copy via Amazon or OUP. :)

Here’s an informal history and summary, in tweet form. (1/20) I first had the core idea of this book way back in early 2009 in an argument in a broom cupboard (yep) with another philosophy grad student. The argument was about vegetarianism (me pro, him against). The argument I came up with was this: (2/20)