Its like a coordinated DDOS PR attack from these existential risk people and they're succeeding in making me constantly talk about them.

@timnitGebru maybe we should start a catchy label abbreviation to change the frame?

They are x-risk, we are

A-risk (actual risk?)
R-squared (real risk?)
R-harm (real harms?)
X-harms (eXisting harms?)

@schock I love this.
@timnitGebru which one should we try? Or another snappy term that's better
@timnitGebru x-harm? As in eXisting harm?
@timnitGebru Reducing x-harm (actually eXisting harms) is a more powerful, ethical, and in the long run, effective approach than speculation about so-called x-risk.
@schock I’m a fan of all of them really.

@schock @timnitGebru problem with long-termist crazyhats is that they don't actually believe in reducing x-harm

How do we fight that?
Or we don't engage them at all?

@zompetto @timnitGebru i think we just focus on developing a stronger alternate narrative

@schock @zompetto @timnitGebru I love the thought behind the creative terminology. I do worry it’s too complicated for media & other potential messengers. The suggestion to developer a stronger counter narrative is smart.

The reality is existential threats are being used as a distraction so people don’t pay attention to the harms happening right now. The individuals behind this movement are hoping to neutralize oversight by the public & regulators with fear of the boogeyman. Fight, flight, or freeze — just don’t look at the man behind the curtain.

@schock @timnitGebru
X-harms are more urgent than F-risks (future), since those are risks which may or may not even come to pass.