I do have a lot of respect for the Open Phil team I just think they are making some critical mistakes, which is fully compatible with respectability
Sorry, my intention wasn’t to imply that you didn’t respect them, I agree that it is consistent to both respect and disagree.
Re the rest of your comment, my understanding of what you meant is as follows:
You think the most effective strategies for reducing AI x risk are explicitly black listed by OpenPhil. Therefore OpenPhil funding an org is strong evidence they don’t follow those strategies. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the orgs work is neutral or negative impact, but it’s evidence against being one of your top things. Further, this is a heuristic rather than a confident rule, and you made the time for a shallow investigation into some orgs funded by OpenPhil anyway, at which point heuristics are screened off and can be ignored anyway.
It’s an approximately correct summary except it overstates my confidence. AFAICT Open Phil hasn’t explicitly blacklisted any x-risk strategies; and I would take Open Phil funding as weak to moderate evidence, not strong evidence.
Sorry, my intention wasn’t to imply that you didn’t respect them, I agree that it is consistent to both respect and disagree.
Re the rest of your comment, my understanding of what you meant is as follows:
You think the most effective strategies for reducing AI x risk are explicitly black listed by OpenPhil. Therefore OpenPhil funding an org is strong evidence they don’t follow those strategies. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the orgs work is neutral or negative impact, but it’s evidence against being one of your top things. Further, this is a heuristic rather than a confident rule, and you made the time for a shallow investigation into some orgs funded by OpenPhil anyway, at which point heuristics are screened off and can be ignored anyway.
Is this a correct summary?
It’s an approximately correct summary except it overstates my confidence. AFAICT Open Phil hasn’t explicitly blacklisted any x-risk strategies; and I would take Open Phil funding as weak to moderate evidence, not strong evidence.
Thanks for clarifying! I somewhat disagree with your premises, but agree this is a reasonable position given your premises