From your comment, I understand that you believe the funding situation is strong and not limiting for TAI, and also that the likely outcomes of current interventions is not promising.
(Not necessarily personally agreeing with the above) given your view, I think one area that could still interest you is “s-risk”. This also relevant for your interests in alleviating massive suffering.
Leadership development seems good in longtermism or TAI
(Admittedly it’s an overloaded, imprecise statement but) the common wisdom that AI and longtermism is talent constrained seems true. The ability to develop new leaders or work is valuable and can give returns, even accounting for your beliefs being correct.
Prosaic animal welfare
Finally, you and other onlookers should be aware that animal welfare, especially the relatively tractable and “prosaic suffering” of farm animals, is one of the areas that has not received a large increase in EA funding.
Some information below should be interesting to cause neutral EAs. Note that based on private information:
The current accomplishments in farm animal welfare are real and the current work is good. But there is very large opportunity to help (many times more animals are suffering than have been directly helped so far).
The amount of extreme suffering that is being experienced by farm animals is probably worse, much worse than is commonly believed (this is directly being addressed through EA animal welfare and also motivates welfarist work). This level of suffering is being occluded because it does not help, for example, it would degrade the mental health of proponents to an unacceptable level. However, the suffering levels are illogical to disregard when considering neartermist cause prioritization.
This animal welfare work would benefit from money and expertise.
Notably, this is an area where EA has been able to claim significant tangible success (for the fraction that has been able to help).
Consider s-risk:
From your comment, I understand that you believe the funding situation is strong and not limiting for TAI, and also that the likely outcomes of current interventions is not promising.
(Not necessarily personally agreeing with the above) given your view, I think one area that could still interest you is “s-risk”. This also relevant for your interests in alleviating massive suffering.
I think talking with CLR, or people such as Chi there might be valuable (they might be happy to speak if you are a personal donor).
Leadership development seems good in longtermism or TAI
(Admittedly it’s an overloaded, imprecise statement but) the common wisdom that AI and longtermism is talent constrained seems true. The ability to develop new leaders or work is valuable and can give returns, even accounting for your beliefs being correct.
Prosaic animal welfare
Finally, you and other onlookers should be aware that animal welfare, especially the relatively tractable and “prosaic suffering” of farm animals, is one of the areas that has not received a large increase in EA funding.
Some information below should be interesting to cause neutral EAs. Note that based on private information:
The current accomplishments in farm animal welfare are real and the current work is good. But there is very large opportunity to help (many times more animals are suffering than have been directly helped so far).
The amount of extreme suffering that is being experienced by farm animals is probably worse, much worse than is commonly believed (this is directly being addressed through EA animal welfare and also motivates welfarist work). This level of suffering is being occluded because it does not help, for example, it would degrade the mental health of proponents to an unacceptable level. However, the suffering levels are illogical to disregard when considering neartermist cause prioritization.
This animal welfare work would benefit from money and expertise.
Notably, this is an area where EA has been able to claim significant tangible success (for the fraction that has been able to help).