Hi Michael, I liked this comment a lot, strongly upvoted.
If I were to give a few suggestions off the top of my head:
It often feels like AISâs answer to get what they want, especially faster, is to simply throw more money at the problem. Salary raises, perks, nicer spaces, fancier events, etc. I think money is perhaps one knob to turn, but Iâd like to see other knobs turned as well: creativity, working a lot longer/âharder (sacrifices of free time), etc. Importantly, I donât want these to be inane (spend 1 week per year in Malawi living like the poorest people on Earth). If people had the sense that AIS people got paid well but were really burning the midnight candle, I think the common man (or parts of EA which arenât as flush with cash) would have less disdain for them.
Abraham kind of mentions this, but maybe any kind of costly signal (or rather, hard-to-fake signal).
Donât spend money just because you can. It often feels like money in AIS is spent sort of recklessly, because itâs in excess rather than âyeah, thereâs an actual need for this thingâ, and thus it doesnât really matter.
Donât make âmoney movedâ the metric for AI safety. It often seems to be. And itâs probably convenient. But itâs pretty easy to move money. Itâs harder to move money well.
Just a lot more public writing of thought processes. It seems that more and more AIS is done in private Google Docs and Slack channels, and just occasionally, clearly public-facing posts are made, and itâs very clear that âthis is what the masses get to know, the professionals will manage the real stuffâ. The original name of Coefficient Giving was âOpen Philanthropyâ. Supposedly, it was changed to not be conflated with OpenAI, but a more cynical view (which I donât believe) would be that it was done to be more accurate in the shift that had taken place and will continue to take place. Thereâs a similar case with Edward Snowden where he made the point that by default, everything in the government is classified even though it ought not be. It often feels like CG sees itself as the âsteward of AIS,â where everyone else should do the thing they are told.
Perhaps another thing Iâd like to see is just frankly less pompousness around âI am one of the most important/âeffective people in the world, doing great things for the world, having lots of impactâ. I get the sense that many think itâs true, but itâs a bit hard to prove and comes across a little thick when itâs paired with what looks on the outside to be a rather comfortable-looking job with great perks/âevents.
Thanks for the kind words :) and appreciate the concreteness of these suggestions.
I think many of these seem to have a common thread of: treating money as a valuable resource, viewing profligacy as costly (both financially and to the soul), seeing signals of dedication and altruism as especially valuable, and generally being pro transparency.
I agree with all of these, though I think itâs difficult to know how to weigh them against the things they sometimes trade-off against. For instance, if youâre deciding whether to fund a large and potentially very impactful grant opportunity that involves high salaries, where the details of the grant are sensitive, it feels unclear to me how much impact there has to be on the table to justify the high salaries and discretion the grant involves. Iâm pulled towards posts like this, though I likewise feel some pull towards the ideas Will discussed in the EA and the current funding situation (or at least my memory of it, which is that in some cases itâs worth setting aside our preference for an ascetic aesthetic when resources are more plentiful and the worldâs problems are urgent.)
The thing Iâm especially curious about is exactly how power and influence can start corrupting oneâs thinking, and what ways there are of avoiding that (to the extent there are any).
Yes, to be clear, I think you should treat profligacy as a cost. It can be worth paying costs, but itâs best to know you are paying it and can decide if itâs worth it.
For instance, if youâre deciding whether to fund a large and potentially very impactful grant opportunity that involves high salaries, where the details of the grant are sensitive, it feels unclear to me how much impact there has to be on the table to justify the high salaries and discretion the grant involves.
Then it better be a damn good grant, and your standards have to be a lot higher. I understand this answer will feel like a cop out since you are asking me to hopefully give you some kind of formula, which I canât give.
The best piece of advice I can give on avoiding the corruption of oneâs own thinking when you have power and influence is to talk with someone smart, whom you trust from earlier (before it was there) and them having no incentive to agree with you. From there, basically, they are there for grounding and as a sanity check and you explain the situation to them and its their job to call you out on it vs. you just hoping to yourself notice things.
One of my next posts is going to be about how I feel a lot of behaviours within the EA community have been externalizing costs (when people want their donors to be secret, not wanting a public association with EA, etc.)
Hi Michael, I liked this comment a lot, strongly upvoted.
If I were to give a few suggestions off the top of my head:
It often feels like AISâs answer to get what they want, especially faster, is to simply throw more money at the problem. Salary raises, perks, nicer spaces, fancier events, etc. I think money is perhaps one knob to turn, but Iâd like to see other knobs turned as well: creativity, working a lot longer/âharder (sacrifices of free time), etc. Importantly, I donât want these to be inane (spend 1 week per year in Malawi living like the poorest people on Earth). If people had the sense that AIS people got paid well but were really burning the midnight candle, I think the common man (or parts of EA which arenât as flush with cash) would have less disdain for them.
Abraham kind of mentions this, but maybe any kind of costly signal (or rather, hard-to-fake signal).
Donât spend money just because you can. It often feels like money in AIS is spent sort of recklessly, because itâs in excess rather than âyeah, thereâs an actual need for this thingâ, and thus it doesnât really matter.
Donât make âmoney movedâ the metric for AI safety. It often seems to be. And itâs probably convenient. But itâs pretty easy to move money. Itâs harder to move money well.
Just a lot more public writing of thought processes. It seems that more and more AIS is done in private Google Docs and Slack channels, and just occasionally, clearly public-facing posts are made, and itâs very clear that âthis is what the masses get to know, the professionals will manage the real stuffâ. The original name of Coefficient Giving was âOpen Philanthropyâ. Supposedly, it was changed to not be conflated with OpenAI, but a more cynical view (which I donât believe) would be that it was done to be more accurate in the shift that had taken place and will continue to take place. Thereâs a similar case with Edward Snowden where he made the point that by default, everything in the government is classified even though it ought not be. It often feels like CG sees itself as the âsteward of AIS,â where everyone else should do the thing they are told.
Perhaps another thing Iâd like to see is just frankly less pompousness around âI am one of the most important/âeffective people in the world, doing great things for the world, having lots of impactâ. I get the sense that many think itâs true, but itâs a bit hard to prove and comes across a little thick when itâs paired with what looks on the outside to be a rather comfortable-looking job with great perks/âevents.
This piece by Lincoln Quirk really comes to mind
Thanks for the kind words :) and appreciate the concreteness of these suggestions.
I think many of these seem to have a common thread of: treating money as a valuable resource, viewing profligacy as costly (both financially and to the soul), seeing signals of dedication and altruism as especially valuable, and generally being pro transparency.
I agree with all of these, though I think itâs difficult to know how to weigh them against the things they sometimes trade-off against. For instance, if youâre deciding whether to fund a large and potentially very impactful grant opportunity that involves high salaries, where the details of the grant are sensitive, it feels unclear to me how much impact there has to be on the table to justify the high salaries and discretion the grant involves. Iâm pulled towards posts like this, though I likewise feel some pull towards the ideas Will discussed in the EA and the current funding situation (or at least my memory of it, which is that in some cases itâs worth setting aside our preference for an ascetic aesthetic when resources are more plentiful and the worldâs problems are urgent.)
The thing Iâm especially curious about is exactly how power and influence can start corrupting oneâs thinking, and what ways there are of avoiding that (to the extent there are any).
Yes, to be clear, I think you should treat profligacy as a cost. It can be worth paying costs, but itâs best to know you are paying it and can decide if itâs worth it.
Then it better be a damn good grant, and your standards have to be a lot higher. I understand this answer will feel like a cop out since you are asking me to hopefully give you some kind of formula, which I canât give.
The best piece of advice I can give on avoiding the corruption of oneâs own thinking when you have power and influence is to talk with someone smart, whom you trust from earlier (before it was there) and them having no incentive to agree with you. From there, basically, they are there for grounding and as a sanity check and you explain the situation to them and its their job to call you out on it vs. you just hoping to yourself notice things.
One of my next posts is going to be about how I feel a lot of behaviours within the EA community have been externalizing costs (when people want their donors to be secret, not wanting a public association with EA, etc.)