And there’s only what, 100 AI safety researchers in the world? Huge increase relative to the size of the field. But I think what they’ve actually said is the avg value is more like 3m and it could be 20m for someone spectacular
I think there’s some misunderstanding of the figure. The figure is an EV that’s probably benchmarked off of cash transfers (i.e. givedirectly). The logic being, if Openphil can recruit for an AI researcher for any less than $20 million USD, they have made more impact than donating it to GiveDirectly. Not that they intend to spend 20 million on each counterfactual career change.
It’s a bit surprising, but not THAT surprising. 50 more technical AI safety researchers would represent somewhere from a 50-100% increase in the total number, which could be a justifiable use of 10% of OpenPhil’s budget.
I’m surprised by that figure. $1billion would only lead on 50 AI safety researchers and they seem to only have any $10 billion.
And there’s only what, 100 AI safety researchers in the world? Huge increase relative to the size of the field. But I think what they’ve actually said is the avg value is more like 3m and it could be 20m for someone spectacular
I think there’s some misunderstanding of the figure. The figure is an EV that’s probably benchmarked off of cash transfers (i.e. givedirectly). The logic being, if Openphil can recruit for an AI researcher for any less than $20 million USD, they have made more impact than donating it to GiveDirectly. Not that they intend to spend 20 million on each counterfactual career change.
It’s a bit surprising, but not THAT surprising. 50 more technical AI safety researchers would represent somewhere from a 50-100% increase in the total number, which could be a justifiable use of 10% of OpenPhil’s budget.