Just to let you know I’ve revised the blurb in light of this. Thanks again!
We also had this choice with our other problems and other paths posts, and decided against the listicle style, basically for the reasons you say. I think there is a nacent/weak norm, and think it makes sense to uphold it. The main argument against is that is actually kind of helpful to know if something is a long list or a short list—esp if I have a small bit of time and won’t want to start something long.
Thank you for writing this up!
Thanks (as often) for this list! I’m wondering, might you be up for putting it into a slightly more fomal standalone post or google doc that we could potentially link to from the blurb?
Really love how you’re collecting resources on so many different important topics!
Thanks for these points! Very encouraging that you can do this work from such a variety of disciplines. I’ll revise the blurb in light of this.
Interesting! I think this might fall under global priorities research, which we have as a ‘priority path’—but it’s not really talked about in our profile on that, and I agree it seems like it could be a good straetgy. I’ll take a look at the priority path and consider adding something about it. Thanks!
Thanks so much Rohin for this explanation. It sounds somewhat persuasive to me, but I don’t feel in a psoition to have a good judgement on the matter. I’ll pass this on to our AI specialists to see what they think!
Thanks Max—I’ll pass this on!
In general, we have a heuristic according to which issues that primarily affect people in countries like the US are less likely to be high impact for more people to focus on at the margin than issues that primiarly affect others or affect all people equally. While criminal justice does affect people in other countries as well, it seems like most of the most promising interventions are country-, and especially US-, specific—including the interventions Open Phil recommends, like those discussed here and here. The main reason for this heuristic is that these issues are likely to be less neglected (even if they’re still neglected relative to how much attention they should receive in general), and likely to affect a smaller number of people. Does that make sense?
Hi Tobias, we’ve added “governance of outer space” on your recommendation. Thanks!
Thanks for this comment. I don’t know a lot about this area, so I’m not confident here. But I would have thought that it would sometimes be important for making safe and beneficial AI to be able to prove that systems actually exhibit certain properties when implemented.
I guess I think this first becuase bugs seem capable of being big deals in this context (maybe I’m wrong there?), and because it seems like there could be some instances where it’s more feasible to use proof assistants than math to prove that a system has a property.
Curious to hear if/why you disagree!
Thanks for this feedback (and for the links)!
Hm—interesting suggestion! The basic case here seems pretty compelling to me. One question I don’t know the answer to is how predicable countries trajectories are—like how much would a niave extrapolation have predicted the current balance of power 50 years ago? If very unpredictable it might not be worth it in terms of EV to bet on the extrapolation. But
I feel more intuitievely excited about trying to foster home grown EA communities in a range of such countries, since many of the people working on it would probably have reasons to be in and focus on those countries anyway because they’re from there.
Thanks! I’m seeing that I sometimes only used links that worked on the 80k site. Fixing the issue now.
To be honest, I’m not that confident in wild animal welfare being on the ‘other longtermist’ list rather than the ‘other global’ list—we had some internal discussion on the matter and opinions differed.
Basically it’s on ‘other longtemrmist’ because the case for it contributing to spreding positive values seems stronger to me than in the case of the other global problems. In some sense working on any issue spreds positive values, but wild animal welfare is sufficiently ‘weird’ that it’s success as a cause area seems more likely to disrupt people’s intuitive views than successes of other areas, which might be particularly useful for spreading postitive values/moral philosophy progress. In particular, the rejection of “natural = good” seems like it could be a unique and useful contribtuion. I also find the analogy of wild animals and other forms of consciousness that we might find ourselves influencing (alien life? Artificial consciousnesses?) somewhat compelling, such that getting our heads straight on wild animal welfare might help prepare us for that.
Thank you for pointing out ea.greaterwrong.org! I’ve had the problem of not being able to wayback forum posts before.
Hey jackmalde, interesting idea—though I think I’d lean against writing it. I guess the main reason is something like: There are quite a few issues to explore on the above list so if someone is searching around for something (rather than if they have something in mind already), they might be able to find an idea there. I guess despite what I said to Michael above, I do want people to see it as some positive signal if something’s on the list. Having a list of things not on the list would probably not add a lot, because the reasons would just be pretty weak things like “brief investigation + asking around didn’t make this seem compelling acc to our assumptions”. Insofar as soeone was already thinking of working on something and they saw that, they probably wouldn’t take it as much reason to change course. Does that make sense?
Thanks! Helpful pointers.