I mostly agree that obviously great stuff gets funding, but I think the “marginal stuff” is still orders of magnitude better in expectation than almost any neartermist interventions.
Not actively. I buy that doing a few projects with sharper focus and tighter feedback loops can be good for community health & epistemics. I would disagree if it took a significant fraction of funding away from interventions with a more clear path to doing an astronomical amount of good. (I almost added that it doesn’t really feel like lead elimination is competing with more longtermist interventions for FTX funding, but there probably is a tradeoff in reality.)
I mostly agree that obviously great stuff gets funding, but I think the “marginal stuff” is still orders of magnitude better in expectation than almost any neartermist interventions.
Do you disagree with FTX funding lead elimination instead of marginal x-risk interventions?
Not actively. I buy that doing a few projects with sharper focus and tighter feedback loops can be good for community health & epistemics. I would disagree if it took a significant fraction of funding away from interventions with a more clear path to doing an astronomical amount of good. (I almost added that it doesn’t really feel like lead elimination is competing with more longtermist interventions for FTX funding, but there probably is a tradeoff in reality.)