A common claim is that concern about [X] ‘distracts’ from concern about [Y]. This is often used as an attack to cause people to discard [X] concerns, on pain of being enemies of [Y] concerns, as attention and effort are presumed to be zero-sum.

There are cases where there is limited focus, especially in political contexts, or where arguments or concerns are interpreted perversely. A central example is when you site [ABCDE] then they’ll find what they consider the weakest one and only consider or attack that, silently discarding the rest entirely. Critics of existential risk do that a lot.

So it does happen. But in general one should assume such claims are false.

Thus, the common claim that AI existential risks ‘distract’ from immediate harms. It turns out Emma Hoes checked, and the claim simply is not true.

The way Emma frames worries about [...]

---

First published:
April 25th, 2025

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sHXGRTTs4SrceEnoG/worries-about-ai-are-usually-complements-not-substitutes

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

A concerned Uncle Sam at computer showing warning and skull symbols.

Graph comparing AI risks and benefits across capability, likelihood, and impact dimensions, showing three distinct outcome categories and control groups.

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

“Worries About AI Are Usually Complements Not Substitutes” by Zvi 08:10 Share

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

Shownotes Transcript

“Worries About AI Are Usually Complements Not Substitutes” by Zvi