The Problem With“Doomers” and “Optimists”

In the modern zeitgeist, we have begun to throw around labels to describe different outlooks about the future, with flavors like “doomer” and “optimist.” The “doomers” are framed as anti-technological progress, and the “optimists” as rational, pro-progress hopefuls. The problem is, this is exactly backwards. This is my very naïve attempt to make an exploratory taxonomy for what is really going on, and I would be interested in hearing thoughts from others in the comments/by DM. The best existing one I've seen is the one @Rob Bensinger uses here . I think there are actually two axes of belief here: Your belief in the potential of AI as unprecedentedly, exponentially capable. Your degree of optimism in people and Good . By the second axis, I do not mean thinking that all people are good and therefore no one will misuse AI. To believe a bad actor could turn AI into a catastrophe is to credit human beings with staggering capability, which is ~the same bet as believing a defender could stop them. You do not have to think humanity is wicked to be a “doomer,” or even that AI misalignment is a strong risk. You only have to think that, out of eight billion people, one is enough. This second axis is therefore really measuring belief in good actors’ capabilities, which is, in some sense, one’s belief in Good triumphing broadly. This is belief in the hero’s camp: that Good actors, be they human or AI, can triumph in the face of anything. Claude has done me the honors of plotting what I m…