Scott Alexander explains why dismissing warnings just because previous similar warnings were wrong is a dangerous fallacy, particularly for risks that naturally increase over time.
Longer summary
Scott Alexander criticizes what he calls the "generalized anti-caution argument" - the tendency to dismiss warnings about risks because previous similar warnings didn't come true. He explains that for gradually increasing risks (like drug doses or AI capabilities), being wrong about earlier warnings doesn't invalidate later ones. He illustrates this through several examples including the Ukraine war, Biden's cognitive decline, and AI development, contrasting these with cases where the risk doesn't naturally increase over time. The post ends by arguing that people should maintain appropriate caution even after false alarms, particularly for risks that naturally increase over time.
Shorter summary