Hardly surprising. When childhood mortality is high people grow up seeing their siblings and friends die as a common thing, and understand it could just as easily be them. With low expectation of survival, life is less intrinsically valuable and risk avoidance is not critical. Change things around such that everyone has a very good chance of living a long, healthy, prosperous life so long as they don't fuck it up, and risk aversion skyrockets. It's easy to forget that the generation currently in power in most industrialized nations is the first in human history to be raised thinking survival to adulthood was a given.

Any image an AI can generate could just as easily be drawn or painted by one of the tens of millions of competent artists in the world.

Actually I'm not sure it's clear which is worse.

> Alternatively, would you rather a world with 80% functionality safely

Obviously this is preferable because safety is uniform in its application to everyone and universally agreed upon.

Interesting question. We developed the whole concept of justice because this kind of abstract utilitarian morality doesn’t apply well. I’m all-in on justice. Give me the full model. I’m not doing anything wrong.

>would you rather a world with 80% functionality with people you don’t trust doing malicious things, or a world with 100% functionality with people you don’t trust doing malicious things?

The latter, obviously.

Karen delenda est.

We must have different definitions of the word “clearly”. I’ll take that full model in a heartbeat, but I suspect many others would disagree.

I'd definitely prefer the latter. The damage that bad actors can do is often extremely limited, while the potential benefits of more capability are boundless.