If this is de-railing the convo here feel free to ignore, but what do you mean concretely by the distinction between ânear-termistâ and âlong-termistâ cause areas here? Back in spring 2022 when some pretty senior (though not decision-critical) politicians were making calls for NATO to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, preventing Nuclear Catastrophe seemed pretty ânear-termistâ to me?
I also suspect many if not most AIXR people in the Bay think that AI Alignment is a pretty ânear-termâ concern for them. Similarly, concerns about Shrimp Welfare have only been focused on the here-and-now effects and not the âlong run digital shrimpâ strawshrimp I sometimes see on social media.
Is near-term/âlong-term thinking actually capturing a clean cause area distinction? Or is it just a âvibeâ distinction? I think you clearest definition is:
Many people are drawn to the clear and more palatable idea that we should devote our lives to doing the most good to humans and animals alive right now
But to me thatâs a philosophical debate right, or perspecitve? Because of 80Kâs top 5 list, I could easily see individuals in each area making arguments that it is a near-term cause.
To be clear, I actually think I agree with a lot of what you say so I donât want to come off as arguing the opposite case. But when I see these arguments about near v long termism or old v new EA or bednets v scifi EA, it just doesnât seem to âcarve nature at its jointsâ as the saying goes, and often leads to confusion as people argue about different things while using the same words.
Thanks those are some fair points. I think I am just using language that others use, so there is some shared understanding, even though it carries with it a lot of fuzziness like you say.
Maybe we can think of better language than ânear termâ or âlong termâ framing or just be more precise.
Open Phil had this issueâthey now use âGlobal Health & Wellbeingâ and âGlobal Catastrophic Risksâ, which I think captures the substantive focus of each.
If this is de-railing the convo here feel free to ignore, but what do you mean concretely by the distinction between ânear-termistâ and âlong-termistâ cause areas here? Back in spring 2022 when some pretty senior (though not decision-critical) politicians were making calls for NATO to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, preventing Nuclear Catastrophe seemed pretty ânear-termistâ to me?
I also suspect many if not most AIXR people in the Bay think that AI Alignment is a pretty ânear-termâ concern for them. Similarly, concerns about Shrimp Welfare have only been focused on the here-and-now effects and not the âlong run digital shrimpâ strawshrimp I sometimes see on social media.
Is near-term/âlong-term thinking actually capturing a clean cause area distinction? Or is it just a âvibeâ distinction? I think you clearest definition is:
But to me thatâs a philosophical debate right, or perspecitve? Because of 80Kâs top 5 list, I could easily see individuals in each area making arguments that it is a near-term cause.
To be clear, I actually think I agree with a lot of what you say so I donât want to come off as arguing the opposite case. But when I see these arguments about near v long termism or old v new EA or bednets v scifi EA, it just doesnât seem to âcarve nature at its jointsâ as the saying goes, and often leads to confusion as people argue about different things while using the same words.
Thanks those are some fair points. I think I am just using language that others use, so there is some shared understanding, even though it carries with it a lot of fuzziness like you say.
Maybe we can think of better language than ânear termâ or âlong termâ framing or just be more precise.
Open Phil had this issueâthey now use âGlobal Health & Wellbeingâ and âGlobal Catastrophic Risksâ, which I think captures the substantive focus of each.