I agree. But the reason I agree is that I think the relevant metric of what counts as a lot of money here is not whether it is a competitive salary in an ML context, but whether it would be perceived as a lot of money in a way that could plausibly threaten Eliezer’s credibility among people who would otherwise be more disposed to support AI safety, e.g. if cited broadly. I believe the answer is that it is, and so in a way that even a sub-$250k salary would not be (despite how insanely high a salary that is by the standard of even most developed countries), and I would guess this expected effect to be bigger than the incentive benefits of guaranteeing his financial independence. For this reason, accepting this level of income struck me as unwise, though I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise.
I agree. But the reason I agree is that I think the relevant metric of what counts as a lot of money here is not whether it is a competitive salary in an ML context, but whether it would be perceived as a lot of money in a way that could plausibly threaten Eliezer’s credibility among people who would otherwise be more disposed to support AI safety, e.g. if cited broadly. I believe the answer is that it is, and so in a way that even a sub-$250k salary would not be (despite how insanely high a salary that is by the standard of even most developed countries), and I would guess this expected effect to be bigger than the incentive benefits of guaranteeing his financial independence. For this reason, accepting this level of income struck me as unwise, though I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise.
Thanks for the good point, Paul. I tend to agree.