However, I think “the government’s version of 80,000 Hours” is a very command-economy vision. Command economies have a terrible track record, and if there were such a thing as an “EA world government” (which I would have many questions about regardless) I would strongly think it shouldn’t try to plan and direct everyone’s individual careers, and should instead leverage market forces like ~all successful large economies.
Lol yep that’s fair. This is surprisingly never the direction the conversation has gone after I’ve shared this thought experiment.
Maybe it should be more like: in a world where resources are allocated according to EA priorities (allocation method- silent), 80,000 Hours would be likelier to tell someone to be a post officer than an AI safety researcher… Bit less catchy though.
Yeah, totally a contextual call about how to make this point in any given conversation, it can be easy to get bogged down with irrelevant context.
I do think it’s true that utilitarian thought tends to push one towards centralization and central planning, despite the bad track record here. It’s worth engaging with thoughtful critiques of EA vibes on this front.
Salaries are the most basic way our economy does allocation, and one possible “EA government utopia” scenario is one where the government corrects market inefficiencies such that salaries perfectly track “value added to the world.” This is deeply sci-fi of course, but hey why not dream. In such a utopia world, if we really did reach the point where marginal safety researchers are not adding more value than marginal post office workers, salaries would presumably change as well.
I like the main point you’re making.
However, I think “the government’s version of 80,000 Hours” is a very command-economy vision. Command economies have a terrible track record, and if there were such a thing as an “EA world government” (which I would have many questions about regardless) I would strongly think it shouldn’t try to plan and direct everyone’s individual careers, and should instead leverage market forces like ~all successful large economies.
Lol yep that’s fair. This is surprisingly never the direction the conversation has gone after I’ve shared this thought experiment.
Maybe it should be more like: in a world where resources are allocated according to EA priorities (allocation method- silent), 80,000 Hours would be likelier to tell someone to be a post officer than an AI safety researcher… Bit less catchy though.
Yeah, totally a contextual call about how to make this point in any given conversation, it can be easy to get bogged down with irrelevant context.
I do think it’s true that utilitarian thought tends to push one towards centralization and central planning, despite the bad track record here. It’s worth engaging with thoughtful critiques of EA vibes on this front.
Salaries are the most basic way our economy does allocation, and one possible “EA government utopia” scenario is one where the government corrects market inefficiencies such that salaries perfectly track “value added to the world.” This is deeply sci-fi of course, but hey why not dream. In such a utopia world, if we really did reach the point where marginal safety researchers are not adding more value than marginal post office workers, salaries would presumably change as well.