Please don’t use LLMs like that. This style of writing is utterly abhorrent.
Rephrased: answered.
1- Communication style is too academic, not aimed at a general public: Many policy orgs are deliberately aiming at elites, or targeting specific decisionmakers. Others are indeed aimed at a general public, and doing pretty good at it (AI 2027 and Rational Animations are the biggest successes, but also Doom Debates or Futurologue are trying their best).
A lot of communication efforts are aimed at the AI safety community (e.g. 80kh podcasts, agent foundations posts) and perhaps you could argue that efforts are misprioritized, but then tell us how you would prefer to reallocate funding between these three targeting strategies.
2- Don’t backtrack: You’re simply saying to abandon epistemics and embrace the dark side of political campaigns, and well, you can promote that if you want, but this is not a novel insight or debate, and you don’t engage with any of the arguments, so whatever.
3- Not enough money/scale: Almost all AI safety orgs for which I know how they function, are deliberately tracking and optimizing their impact per dollar. I don’t know what else you want to say here. Redirect money from expensive EA-non-AI efforts like AMF towards AI safety?
Overall: Disappointing article. Please don’t limit yourself to AI reasoning, it’s shallow and obfuscated.
amaury lorin
Benchmarks will become useless due to eval awareness¹
Some yes, some no. There are a great many benchmarks measuring a great many things. More than eval awareness, I’d be worried they’ll become useless due to reward hacking.
If animals continue to exist in a post-AGI world, animal suffering will not persist
“Post-AGI world” is a very vast possibility, assuming animals continue to exist (basically assumes a weirdtopia). Business as usual + extreme concentration of power is my modal outcome for that.µ
For animal suffering to not persist would require a combination of having the capabilities to end it from a glorious transhumanist future, but also a grounding in physical existence which feels incompatible.
Greetings!
I cannot apply for the position you offer because I don’t have expertise on many topics you intend to cover (in particular, the links between AI Safety and politics and the notable figures involved in the AI race), but I would like to offer unpaid help nonetheless for some technical topics:
- Timelines (how and when AGI)
- How AI could enable authoritarian regimes
- How killer robots could reshape war and the balance of power
I also propose more generally the help of the CeSIA (French Center for AI Safety). We have participated in multiple high-profile actions, the most successful being a video addressed to the general French public. We are also writing a handbook on AI Safety, and we are generally experienced in producing technical content aimed at the general public.
- Amaury Lorin
Well, they’re not claiming the moral high ground; they can consistently say that EA has been net negative, and been net negative themselves for human survival.
Two arguments against longtermist thought experiments
Also, I don’t see it justify that targeting corporations works?
Is it more effective to convert high-profile individuals in animal slaughter-related corporations, to pass regulations for these corporations, to become experts working to create welfare standards from within, or what? It doesn’t tell me much about where to orient my animal welfare charity towards.
You can strong-vote by long-clicking the arrow (or double-tapping if you’re on mobile).
That’s not an information the doctors have at hand when they’re trying to figure out who should receive oxygen.
(Also, it doesn’t matter what’s the utilitarian way to say, what matters is saying correct things—and utilitarianism happens to sometimes help with that.)
There are few formulations that read as claudisms to me: “But the distinction matters.” “Reach, yes. A campaign, no.”
But mostly it’s the overall tone and depth of analysis.