You seem to think that resources now are several times better than resources in a few years, which are presumably several times better than resources in a few more years, and so on. Let’s say you think that it’s a factor of 2 improvement every 2 years (it sounds like this understates your view).
If you endorsed this logic between 1954 and now, you would conclude that resources in 1954 are about a billion times more valuable than resources now, i.e. that having a few million dollars in 1954 is roughly as valuable as controlling all of the world’s resources today, or that a group of a dozen people in 1954 wield more influence than the whole world does today. This is conceivable, but would be pretty surprising.
My claim is a little narrower than the one you correctly criticize.
I believe that for movements like EA, and for some other types of crucial consideration events (atomic bombs, FAI, perhaps the end of aging) there are windows of opportunity where resources have the sort of exponential payoff decay you describe.
I have high confidence that the EA window of opportunity is currently in force. So EAs en tant que telle are currently in this situation.
I think it is possible that AI’s window is currently open as well, I’m far less confident in that.
With Bostrom, I think that the “strategic considerations” or “crucial considerations” time window is currently open.
I believe the atomic bomb time window was in full force in 1954, and highly commend the actions of Bertrand Russell in convincing Einstein to sign the anti-bomb manifesto. Just like today I commend the actions of those who caused the anti-UFAI manifesto.
This is one way in which what I intend to claim is narrower.
The other way is that all of this rests on a conditional: assuming that EA as a movement is right. Not that it is metaphysically right, but some simpler definition, where in most ways history unfolds, people would look back and say that EA was a good idea, like we say the Russell-Einstein manifesto was a good idea today.
As for reasons to believe the EA window of opportunity is currently open, I offer the stories above (TED, Superintelligence, GWWC, and others...), the small size of the movement at the moment, the unusual level of tractability that charities have acquired in the last few years due to technological ingenuity, the globalization of knowledge—which increases the scope of what you can do a substantial amount—the fact that we have some, but not all financial tycoons yet, etc…
As to the factor of resource value decrease, I withhold judgement, but will say the factor could go down a lot from what it currently is, and the claim would still hold (which I tried to convey by Singer’s 1972 example).
It’s been less than two years and all the gaps have either been closed, or been kept open in purpose, which Ben Hoffman has been staunchly criticising.
But anyway, it has been less than 2 years and Open Phil has way more money than it knows what to do with.
It has been about 3 years, and only very specific talent still matters for EA now. Earning to Give to institutions is gone, only giving to individuals still makes sense.
It is possible that there will be full scale repleaceability of non-researchers in EA related fields by 2020.
Many tycoon personality types favour other charities where they’re the main patron. This is pure speculation but others may want to leave room for typical individual donors, as these charities are particularly well suited to them.
You seem to think that resources now are several times better than resources in a few years, which are presumably several times better than resources in a few more years, and so on. Let’s say you think that it’s a factor of 2 improvement every 2 years (it sounds like this understates your view).
If you endorsed this logic between 1954 and now, you would conclude that resources in 1954 are about a billion times more valuable than resources now, i.e. that having a few million dollars in 1954 is roughly as valuable as controlling all of the world’s resources today, or that a group of a dozen people in 1954 wield more influence than the whole world does today. This is conceivable, but would be pretty surprising.
My claim is a little narrower than the one you correctly criticize.
I believe that for movements like EA, and for some other types of crucial consideration events (atomic bombs, FAI, perhaps the end of aging) there are windows of opportunity where resources have the sort of exponential payoff decay you describe.
I have high confidence that the EA window of opportunity is currently in force. So EAs en tant que telle are currently in this situation. I think it is possible that AI’s window is currently open as well, I’m far less confident in that. With Bostrom, I think that the “strategic considerations” or “crucial considerations” time window is currently open. I believe the atomic bomb time window was in full force in 1954, and highly commend the actions of Bertrand Russell in convincing Einstein to sign the anti-bomb manifesto. Just like today I commend the actions of those who caused the anti-UFAI manifesto. This is one way in which what I intend to claim is narrower.
The other way is that all of this rests on a conditional: assuming that EA as a movement is right. Not that it is metaphysically right, but some simpler definition, where in most ways history unfolds, people would look back and say that EA was a good idea, like we say the Russell-Einstein manifesto was a good idea today.
As for reasons to believe the EA window of opportunity is currently open, I offer the stories above (TED, Superintelligence, GWWC, and others...), the small size of the movement at the moment, the unusual level of tractability that charities have acquired in the last few years due to technological ingenuity, the globalization of knowledge—which increases the scope of what you can do a substantial amount—the fact that we have some, but not all financial tycoons yet, etc…
As to the factor of resource value decrease, I withhold judgement, but will say the factor could go down a lot from what it currently is, and the claim would still hold (which I tried to convey by Singer’s 1972 example).
We have financial tycoons?? Then why is there still room for funding with AMF GiveDirectly SCI and DwTW?? Presumably they’re just flirting with us.
It’s been less than two years and all the gaps have either been closed, or been kept open in purpose, which Ben Hoffman has been staunchly criticising.
But anyway, it has been less than 2 years and Open Phil has way more money than it knows what to do with.
QED.
It has been about 3 years, and only very specific talent still matters for EA now. Earning to Give to institutions is gone, only giving to individuals still makes sense.
It is possible that there will be full scale repleaceability of non-researchers in EA related fields by 2020.
But only if, until then, we keep doing things!
Many tycoon personality types favour other charities where they’re the main patron. This is pure speculation but others may want to leave room for typical individual donors, as these charities are particularly well suited to them.