I agree about that.
Davidmanheim
Karma: 7,556
Better Games or Bednets?
Wait, did you want them to “denounce” the choice of shutting down USAID, or the individual?
Have you read Drexler’s CAIS proposal?
I think the discussions in comments on the forum are probably a better way to get feedback and develop parts of the skill, though obviously long form writing is an additional skill.
Yeah, I agree that the title is part of your view, but I think your view is very poorly summarized by the title.
Historically, I’d disagree. And I’m not confident the change away from that is persisting.
Thank you for this post!
I broadly agree with your view, but think I strongly disagree with the conclusion. There seem to be lots of worlds where having some small percentage of total EA focus include this area pays off hugely. So while I agree it’s not the highest impact area, because of synergies, it seems somewhat likely for it to be part of the highest impact portfolio.
This post seems broadly correct, but poorly titled, in that it concludes something very different than the title does.
Seconded the point that it’s a good discussion to have. Very closely related to my original point, I don’t think downvoting this is helpful—it’s good to have public discussion, even if I think the framing about “EA” denouncing things is confused.
I don’t think it’s “politically wise” to be associated with someone like Musk
This grossly misconstrues what I said.
Elon has directly attacked every value I hold dear, and has directly screwed over life-saving aid to the third world. He is an enemy of effective altruist principles, and I don’t think we should be ashamed to loudly and openly say so.
I basically agree, personally, and think you missed my point.
If it’s “only” a coinflip if it causes extinction if developed today, to be wildly optimistic, then I will again argue that talking about who should flip the coin seems bad—the correct answer in that case is no one, and we should be incredibly clear on that!
This sort of disagreement and rejection has happened on the part of many prominent EA individuals, but EA is a movement without a single leader, which I think is a good thing. As such, the movement as a whole can disagree about politics and who is or is not acceptable, and does not coordinate to endorse or reject people. And that’s healthy for a community with different political and social views—neither of which are definitive of the movement. (It’s arguably even politically wise not to take sides in political fights that don’t relate directly to any of the goals of EA.)
If that means you can’t agree to be a part of a community that contains others who disagree about who they find objectionable, that’s an unfortunate cost to being a diverse community.
I’m confused why people think certainty is needed to characterize this as a game of chicken! It’s certainly not needed in order for the game theoretic dynamics to apply.
I can make a decision about whether to oppose something given that there is substantial uncertainty, and I have done so.
“You can’t prove it” isn’t the type of argument I expect to see if we’re truthseeking. All of these are positions taken by various other experts, and are at least reasonable. No, I’m not certain, but I don’t need to be when others are risking my life in pursuit of short term military advantage.
Is what the US has done or supported in Iraq, Syria, Israel and elsewhere materially or obviously less bad?
Do you feel the same way if AGI is created by the Trump administration, which has openly opposed a variety of human right?
(I’m not entirely disagreeing directionally, I’m hoping to ask honestly to understand your views, not attack them.)
It’s a game of chicken, and I don’t really care which side is hitting the accelerator if I’m stuck in one of the cars. China getting uncontrolled ASI first kills me the same way that the US getting it does.
Edit to add: I would be very interested in responses instead of disagree votes. I think this should be the overwhelming consideration for anyone who cares about the future more than, say, 10 years out. If people disagree, I would be interested in understanding why.
Excited to see people capitalizing on opportunities like this!
I’d wonder how much harder it would be to get large commercial product vendors to consider the same thing. (Approaching them is probably harder, and they likely already have food chemists, etc. who would have vested interests and/or would need to be convinced.)
I think (tentatively) that making (even giant and insanely consequential) mistakes with positive intentions, like the great leap forward, is in a meaningful sense far less bad than mistakes that are more obviously aimed at cynical self benefit at the expense of others, like, say, most of US foreign policy in South America, or post-civil-war policy related to segregation.