estimates that AI will kill us all are put around only 5-10% by AI experts and attendees at an x-risk conference in a paper from Katja Grace.
“only” 5-10% of ~8 billion people dying this century is still 400-800 million deaths! Certainly higher than e.g. estimates of malarial deaths within this century!
What’s the case for climate change being highly concerning from a near-termist perspective? It seems unlikely to me that marginal $s in fighting climate change are a better investment in global health than marginal $s spent directly on global health. And also particularly unlikely to be killing >400 million people.
I agree some biosecurity spending may be more cost-effective on neartermist grounds.
Hmm.. I’d have to think more carefully about it. Was very much off-the-cuff. I mostly agree with your criticism, I think I was mainly thinking bio-risk makes most sense as a near-termist priority and so would get most of x-risk funding until solved, since it is much more tractable than AI Risk.
Maybe this is the main point I’m trying to make, and so the spirit of the post seems off, since near-termist x-risky stuff would mostly fund bio-risk and long-termist x-risky stuff would mostly go to AI.
“only” 5-10% of ~8 billion people dying this century is still 400-800 million deaths! Certainly higher than e.g. estimates of malarial deaths within this century!
What’s the case for climate change being highly concerning from a near-termist perspective? It seems unlikely to me that marginal $s in fighting climate change are a better investment in global health than marginal $s spent directly on global health. And also particularly unlikely to be killing >400 million people.
I agree some biosecurity spending may be more cost-effective on neartermist grounds.
Hmm.. I’d have to think more carefully about it. Was very much off-the-cuff. I mostly agree with your criticism, I think I was mainly thinking bio-risk makes most sense as a near-termist priority and so would get most of x-risk funding until solved, since it is much more tractable than AI Risk.
Maybe this is the main point I’m trying to make, and so the spirit of the post seems off, since near-termist x-risky stuff would mostly fund bio-risk and long-termist x-risky stuff would mostly go to AI.