Misplaced Pages

Risk of astronomical suffering

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Redirected from S-risks) Risks of astronomical suffering
This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately. (December 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Scope–severity grid from Bostrom's paper "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority"

Risks of astronomical suffering, also called suffering risks or s-risks, are risks involving much more suffering than all that has occurred on Earth so far. They are sometimes categorized as a subclass of existential risks.

According to some scholars, s-risks warrant serious consideration as they are not extremely unlikely and can arise from unforeseen scenarios. Although they may appear speculative, factors such as technological advancement, power dynamics, and historical precedents indicate that advanced technology could inadvertently result in substantial suffering. Thus, s-risks are considered to be a morally urgent matter, despite the possibility of technological benefits.

Sources of possible s-risks include embodied artificial intelligence and superintelligence, as well as space colonization, which could potentially lead to "constant and catastrophic wars" and an immense increase in wild animal suffering by introducing wild animals, who "generally lead short, miserable lives full of sometimes the most brutal suffering", to other planets, either intentionally or inadvertently.

Types of S-risk

Artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence is central to s-risk discussions because it may eventually enable powerful actors to control vast technological systems. In a worst-case scenario, AI could be used to create systems of perpetual suffering, such as a totalitarian regime expanding across space. Additionally, s-risks might arise incidentally, such as through AI-driven simulations of conscious beings experiencing suffering, or from economic activities that disregard the well-being of nonhuman or digital minds. Steven Umbrello, an AI ethics researcher, has warned that biological computing may make system design more prone to s-risks. Brian Tomasik has argued that astronomical suffering could emerge from solving the AI alignment problem incompletely. He argues for the possibility of a "near miss" scenario, where a superintelligent AI that is slightly misaligned has the maximum likelihood of causing astronomical suffering, compared to a completely unaligned AI.

Space colonization

Space colonization could increase suffering by introducing wild animals to new environments, leading to ecological imbalances. In unfamiliar habitats, animals may struggle to survive, facing hunger, disease, and predation. These challenges, combined with unstable ecosystems, could cause population crashes or explosions, resulting in widespread suffering. Additionally, the lack of natural predators or proper biodiversity on colonized planets could worsen the situation, mirroring Earth’s ecological problems on a larger scale. This raises ethical concerns about the unintended consequences of space colonization, as it could propagate immense animal suffering in new, unstable ecosystems. Phil Torres argues that space colonization poses significant "suffering risks", where expansion into space will lead to the creation of diverse species and civilizations with conflicting interests. These differences, combined with advanced weaponry and the vast distances between civilizations, would result in catastrophic and unresolvable conflicts. Strategies like a "cosmic Leviathan" to impose order or deterrence policies are unlikely to succeed due to physical limitations in space and the destructive power of future technologies. Thus, Torres concludes that space colonization could create immense suffering and should be delayed or avoided altogether.

Genetic engineering

David Pearce has argued that genetic engineering is a potential s-risk. Pearce argues that while technological mastery over the pleasure-pain axis and solving the hard problem of consciousness could lead to the potential eradication of suffering, it could also potentially increase the level of contrast in the hedonic range that sentient beings could experience. He argues that these technologies might make it feasible to create "hyperpain" or "dolorium" that experience levels of suffering beyond the human range.

Excessive criminal punishment

S-risk scenarios may arise from excessive criminal punishment, with precedents in both historical and in modern penal systems. These risks escalate in situations such as warfare or terrorism, especially when advanced technology is involved, as conflicts can amplify destructive tendencies like sadism, tribalism, and retributivism. War often intensifies these dynamics, with the possibility of catastrophic threats being used to force concessions. Agential s-risks are further aggravated by malevolent traits in powerful individuals, such as narcissism or psychopathy. This is exemplified by totalitarian dictators like Hitler and Stalin, whose actions in the 20th century inflicted widespread suffering.

Exotic risks

According to David Pearce, there are other potential s-risks that are more exotic, such as those posed by the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Mitigation strategies

To mitigate s-risks, efforts focus on researching and understanding the factors that exacerbate them, particularly in emerging technologies and social structures. Targeted strategies include promoting safe AI design, ensuring cooperation among AI developers, and modeling future civilizations to anticipate risks. Broad strategies may advocate for moral norms against large-scale suffering and stable political institutions. According to Anthony DiGiovanni, prioritizing s-risk reduction is essential, as it may be more manageable than other long-term challenges, while avoiding catastrophic outcomes could be easier than achieving an entirely utopian future.

Induced amnesia

Induced amnesia has been proposed as a way to mitigate s-risks in locked-in conscious AI and certain AI-adjacent biological systems like brain organoids.

Cosmic rescue missions

David Pearce's concept of "cosmic rescue missions" proposes the idea of sending probes to alleviate potential suffering in extraterrestrial environments. These missions aim to identify and mitigate suffering among hypothetical extraterrestrial life forms, ensuring that if life exists elsewhere, it is treated ethically. However, challenges include the lack of confirmed extraterrestrial life, uncertainty about their consciousness, and public support concerns, with environmentalists advocating for non-interference and others focusing on resource extraction.

See also

References

  1. Bostrom, Nick (2013). "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority" (PDF). Global Policy. 4 (1): 15–3. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12002. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-07-14. Retrieved 2024-02-12 – via Existential Risk.
  2. Daniel, Max (2017-06-20). "S-risks: Why they are the worst existential risks, and how to prevent them (EAG Boston 2017)". Center on Long-Term Risk. Archived from the original on 2023-10-08. Retrieved 2023-09-14.
  3. Hilton, Benjamin (September 2022). "'S-risks'". 80,000 Hours. Archived from the original on 2024-05-09. Retrieved 2023-09-14.
  4. Baumann, Tobias (2017). "S-risk FAQ". Center for Reducing Suffering. Archived from the original on 2023-07-09. Retrieved 2023-09-14.
  5. Baumann, Tobias (2017). "S-risks: An introduction". centerforreducingsuffering.org. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
  6. ^ Umbrello, Steven; Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz (June 2019). "Nonconscious Cognitive Suffering: Considering Suffering Risks of Embodied Artificial Intelligence". Philosophies. 4 (2): 24. doi:10.3390/philosophies4020024. hdl:2318/1702133.
  7. Sotala, Kaj; Gloor, Lukas (2017-12-27). "Superintelligence As a Cause or Cure For Risks of Astronomical Suffering". Informatica. 41 (4). ISSN 1854-3871. Archived from the original on 2021-04-16. Retrieved 2021-02-10.
  8. Torres, Phil (2018-06-01). "Space colonization and suffering risks: Reassessing the "maxipok rule"". Futures. 100: 74–85. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.04.008. ISSN 0016-3287. S2CID 149794325. Archived from the original on 2019-04-29. Retrieved 2021-02-10.
  9. Kovic, Marko (2021-02-01). "Risks of space colonization". Futures. 126: 102638. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2020.102638. ISSN 0016-3287. S2CID 230597480.
  10. "S-risks: Reducing the worst risks from the future". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
  11. Tomasik, Brian (2018). "Astronomical suffering from slightly misaligned artificial intelligence". Essays on Reducing Suffering.
  12. Phil Torres (2018). "Space colonization and suffering risks: Reassessing the "maxipok rule"". Futures. 103: 144–154. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.04.008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
  13. ^ "Quora Answers by David Pearce (2015 - 2024) : Transhumanism with a human face".
  14. "A Typology of S-Risks". Center for Reducing Suffering. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
  15. "A Beginner's Guide to Reducing S-Risks". Longtermrisk.org. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
  16. Tkachenko, Yegor (2024). "Position: Enforced Amnesia as a Way to Mitigate the Potential Risk of Silent Suffering in the Conscious AI". Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
  17. "Objections". hedweb.com. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
  18. "Risks of Astronomical Future Suffering". longtermrisk.org. Retrieved 19 October 2024.

Further reading

Global catastrophic risks
Technological
Sociological
Ecological
Climate change
Earth Overshoot Day
Biological
Extinction
Others
Astronomical
Eschatological
Others
Fictional
Organizations
General
Effective altruism
Concepts
Key figures
Organizations
Focus areas
Literature
Events
Existential risk from artificial intelligence
Concepts
Organizations
People
Other
Category
Categories: