> In other words, with log utility it is optimal to take a 1 in 3 chance of ending human existence in exchange for a 2/3 chance of dramatically raising living standards by a factor of 55.

With no evidence that living standards raise by much if any. "Abundance" is macro hand-waving. Existence of AI is not in isolation from all other factors on earth as well. AI will not increase the quantity of enjoyable housing, will not lower the costs of energy, will slightly temporarily increase calorie productivity of agriculture but not nutritional productivity and will not replenish soil, will not improve environmental degradation of soil, air, water, and so on. We'll drown in more plastic than ever. People might do things to improve abundance but probably won't any more than they do today, for usual reasons of convenience and profit.

Western economists are essentially clergy for the religion of capitalism. They're all like Wimp Lo, they were all trained wrong, as a joke.

Any analysis that starts with assuming a perfectly spherical, frictionless, rational consumer is fundamentally unserious.

It's worth reading the original paper instead of cherry-picked summaries in the press.

This is just the same insane Effective Altruist slop we've heard before from the likes of SBF, et. al. Completely divorced from reality.

The "Abundist" movement is already dead.