I think quite a few dedicated EAs will remain whatever happens. Perhaps those voices actually have more leverage in another way: To see if there are ways to redirect money away from high-paying less impactful jobs and into animal welfare and/or global health/poverty reduction. I have always been suspicious of the extreme assumptions needed behind x-risk interventions being prioritized over other causes: Extreme increases in value (populations and life satisfaction) over long time horizons, as well as a simultaneous ceasing “forever” of subsequent periods of high risk. In a way, it becomes EA all over again. As less clearly useful AI safety project pop up left and right, that might look more like philanthropy before EA. And our job is then to show them that there are more effective interventions than AI safety. Renaissance Philanthropy is doing fantastic work looking at how new technology can be applied to solve current, painful problems—something making me hopeful.
I think quite a few dedicated EAs will remain whatever happens. Perhaps those voices actually have more leverage in another way: To see if there are ways to redirect money away from high-paying less impactful jobs and into animal welfare and/or global health/poverty reduction. I have always been suspicious of the extreme assumptions needed behind x-risk interventions being prioritized over other causes: Extreme increases in value (populations and life satisfaction) over long time horizons, as well as a simultaneous ceasing “forever” of subsequent periods of high risk. In a way, it becomes EA all over again. As less clearly useful AI safety project pop up left and right, that might look more like philanthropy before EA. And our job is then to show them that there are more effective interventions than AI safety. Renaissance Philanthropy is doing fantastic work looking at how new technology can be applied to solve current, painful problems—something making me hopeful.