I think you need much more evidence to justify a claim that “a larger set containing X is not much weaker on average than the set X itself”.
If OpenPhil’s fellow are not expected to do research on AI safety then apparently the justification for funding is quite different, so let’s put them to one side.
The CS DPhil scholars at Oxford seem similar to EA CS PhDs at Toronto, ANU, and other rank 10-30 schools.
The RSP students are also seem similar, with broader interests but less credentials.
Paul’s grantees seem more aligned though less qualified and supervised, though there are only three.
Overall, rank 10-30 AI safety PhD students seems comparable to these three latter groups, and clearly not much weaker.
? I think you’re claiming there are more grad-school-bound undergrads-from-top-schools, total, aspiring to be “AI safety researchers” than to be economists? This seems definitely false to me. Am I misunderstanding?
Edited to clarify that this means researchers on longtermist econ issues.
But I am interested to know if this argument is wrong in any other respect!
If OpenPhil’s fellow are not expected to do research on AI safety then apparently the justification for funding is quite different, so let’s put them to one side.
The CS DPhil scholars at Oxford seem similar to EA CS PhDs at Toronto, ANU, and other rank 10-30 schools.
The RSP students are also seem similar, with broader interests but less credentials.
Paul’s grantees seem more aligned though less qualified and supervised, though there are only three.
Overall, rank 10-30 AI safety PhD students seems comparable to these three latter groups, and clearly not much weaker.
Edited to clarify that this means researchers on longtermist econ issues.
But I am interested to know if this argument is wrong in any other respect!