Comment by sprucevoid

> Singer's insistence ...

... in rare, exceptional cases which are extremely unlikely given the teamwork and papertrails of modern day health care systems, as others have already pointed out to you, but which you keep dropping. Once that context is added your claim (the one I quoted in my previous reply) does not follow.

> No perhaps about it, secrecy is part that can only really be discarded in non-iterated settings, in the endgame.

No idea what that means.

> Of course you know that "habit" ... is a categorically weaker insurance against rule-breaking than habit plus belief in the principle ...

Actually I don't know that. Do you have empirical evidence for it? Evidence with regard to moral views with norms in a multi level structure, like what act utilitarianism tends to have, compared to views with a single or fewer such levels?

> Yes, for example the effective altruism movement is comprised of generic totalitarian scum ...

I hear you reporting your contempt and your intuition. I'm waiting for supportive evidence, studies.

> SBF

A bad-behaving billionaire. But I don't know if his behaviour is worse on average than billionaire peers who hold other moral belief systems.

> Jaywalking isn't what the "pivotal act" theory entails, and your theory about total death is specious and motivated by the political benefits of such an act.

No idea what that means.

> I believe that lying is wrong qualitatively too, so for me, the logic of habitually being honest applies in the way it cannot apply to a utilitarian, even if you can design a hypothetical where I would have to agree that lying is justified.

What does "wrong qualitatively" mean and how does it differ from "wrong non-qualitatively" or "wrong" simpliciter? I so far don't see anything in the sentence that gets you out of the bind of the hypothetical I presented.

edit: It is clear that you contempt the "EA consensus position on AI safety". But it isn't clear what you think that position is nor what other position you think is better nor how you think that other position is reached from intuitive deontology or some other normative theory.