AI concerns complement rather than replace existing worries

Recent research challenges the assumption that different AI risk concerns compete for attention, revealing instead that people who worry about existential threats from advanced AI are actually more likely to care about immediate ethical concerns as well. This finding dispels a common rhetorical tactic in AI safety discussions that pits long-term and short-term concerns against each other, suggesting that a comprehensive view of AI risks is both possible and prevalent among those engaged with the technology’s development.

The big picture: New research cited by Emma Hoes demonstrates that concerns about AI risks tend to complement rather than substitute for each other, contradicting a frequent claim in AI safety discussions.

• People who worry about existential risks from advanced AI are also more likely to be concerned about immediate ethical issues like bias, privacy, and job displacement.
• The study challenges the narrative that focusing on long-term AI risks distracts from addressing present-day harms.

Why this matters: The finding undermines a common rhetorical tactic used to dismiss certain AI concerns by framing attention as zero-sum.

• When concerns are presented as competing rather than complementary, it creates artificial divisions in the AI safety community.
• A more holistic approach to AI risk assessment becomes possible when we recognize that different concerns can coexist and reinforce each other.

What they’re saying: Despite her framing of existential risk as “sci-fi doom,” Emma Hoes acknowledges the research contradicts the substitution narrative.

• Arvind Narayanan noted: “People who worry about AI causing human extinction also worry more, not less, about AI systems perpetuating injustice.”

Reading between the lines: The substitution claim appears to be a tactical move rather than an evidence-based position.

• Those who invoke the “distraction” argument may be attempting to sideline certain AI concerns rather than engaging with them substantively.
• The research suggests most people naturally develop a more nuanced and comprehensive view of AI risks when properly informed.

Counterpoints: There are limited contexts where attention to different concerns might be zero-sum.

• In political arenas with limited bandwidth, focusing on one issue can sometimes come at the expense of others.
• Critics may selectively focus on what they perceive as the weakest argument in a set, ignoring stronger points—a tactic commonly used against existential risk concerns.