The second is that the growth rate of the companies you invest in must exceed the rate at which the marginal cost of doing good increases, due to low-hanging fruit getting picked and due to lost opportunities for compounding.
Michael Dickens engages with something similar in this post.
In the case of transformative, slow-takeoff AI driven by for-profit companies, it seems reasonable to assume that the economy is going to grow faster than the marginal cost of doing good, because gains from AI seem unlikely to be evenly distributed.
The third is that the growth potential of AI companies isn’t already priced in, in a way that reduces your expected returns to be no better than index funds.
I’m unsure whether AI company growth is adequately priced in or not.
If it is, I think the argument still holds. The returns from an index fund could be very high in the case of transformative AI, so holding index funds would probably be better than donating now in that case.
Michael Dickens engages with something similar in this post.
In the case of transformative, slow-takeoff AI driven by for-profit companies, it seems reasonable to assume that the economy is going to grow faster than the marginal cost of doing good, because gains from AI seem unlikely to be evenly distributed.
I’m unsure whether AI company growth is adequately priced in or not.
If it is, I think the argument still holds. The returns from an index fund could be very high in the case of transformative AI, so holding index funds would probably be better than donating now in that case.
See also the discussion here & here.