[Question] Do short AI timelines demand short Giving timelines?

[ScienceMon🔸]

I’m a biologist in my 30s working on cures for chronic lung diseases. I’ve followed AI developments closely over the past 3 years. Holy smokes it’s moving fast. But I have neither the technical skills nor the policy conviction to do anything about AI safety.

And I have signed the Giving What We Can pledge 🔸.

If superintelligence is coming soon and goes horribly, then I won’t be around to help anyone in 2040. If superintelligence is coming soon and goes wonderfully, then no one will need my help that badly in 2040.

Those two extreme scenarios both push me to aggressively donate to global health in the near term. While I still can.

Does anyone else feel this way? Does anyone in a similar scenario to me see things differently?

[CalebMaresca]

I don’t think that the possible outcomes of AGI/​superintelligence are necessarily so binary. For example, I am concerned that AI could displace almost all human labor, making traditional capital more important as human capital becomes almost worthless. This could exacerbate wealth inequality and significantly decrease economic mobility, making post-AGI wealth mostly a function of how much wealth you had pre-AGI.

In this scenario, saving more now would enable you to have more capital while returns to capital are increasing. At the same time, there could be billions of people out of work without significant savings and in need of assistance.

I also think even if AGI goes well for humans, that doesn’t necessarily translate into going well for animals. Animal welfare could still be a significant cause area in a post-AGI future and by saving more now, you would have more to donate then (potentially a lot more if returns to capital are high).

[Tristan Cook]

I thought about this a few years ago and have a post here.

I agree with Caleb’s comment on the necessity to consider what a post-superintelligence world would look like, and whether capital could be usefully deployed. This post might be of interest.

My own guess is that it’s most likely that capital won’t be useful and that more aggressive donating makes sense.

[ScienceMon🔸]

Thanks for those links, Tristan! It felt a bit like @Jackson Wagner’s comment was scolding me directly:

The idea that a neartermist funder becomes convinced that world-transformative AGI is right around the corner, and then takes action by dumping all their money into fast-acting welfare enhancements, instead of trying to prepare for or influence the immense changes that will shortly occur, almost seems like parody.

Why do you believe that capital won’t be useful?

[Tristan Cook]

Regarding Jackson’s comment, I agree that ‘dumping’ money last-minute is a bit silly. Spending at a higher rate (and saving less) doesn’t seem so crazy—which is what it seems you were considering.

Why do you believe that capital won’t be useful?

My guess the modal outcome from AGI (and eventual ASI) is human disempowerment/​extinction. Less confidently, I also suspect that most worlds where things go ‘well’ look weird and not not much like business-as-normal. For example, if we eventually have a sovereign ASI implement some form of coherent extrapolated volition I’m pretty unsure how (we would want) this to interact with individuals’ capital. [Point 2. of this recent shortform feel adjacent—discussing CEV based on population rather than wealth].