Home | Search

2026-05-31

Update

See also: "Actually agree" versus "agree to disagree yet accept" versus "do not accept"
- this post is attempting to understand type-1 better
- my guess is even "safe tech progress" is too abstract, and the details matter further. Two people who both are willing to die for "safe tech progress", could still end up type-1 or type-2 (or worse, even type-3) depending on the specific decisions they are making, and these could go through multiple transitions.

2026-05-30

Disclaimer

Main

Imagine I was in year 1980 and wanted to marry someone. It would not have made much sense to use "cares about ASI risk" as the criteria, because back then there was no way to tell whether ASI was 20 years away or 50 or 300. However it would have made sense to use "cares about safe tech progress" as a criteria. Humans already had nukes so the idea of a single technology blowing up civilisation was understood back then itself.
Imagine further back, let's say it was 1850. That long ago even setting "atheist" as a criteria for who to marry would have been a radical thing, although I'm strongly guessing some people did it. I'm not actually not very sure what culture looked like in that particular time period. This is basically after the first industrial revolution but before the second one. But even then, there were people thinking about future technologies. See HG Wells or HP Lovecraft for example, they were both in this approx time period.
I'm therefore more comfortable using "safe tech progress" as a criteria to filter people, than using "ASI risk" as a criteria to filter people.
Also see my earlier note, interfaith marriages are totally still possible (between someone who worships "safe tech progress" and someone who does not), the important part is to not lie to yourself about the fact you are in an interfaith marriage.

Enter email or phone number to subscribe. You will receive atmost one update per month

Enter comment