I think the linked article does consider it but rejects it as unrealistic. See the section, “In this scenario every country that is richer than Denmark reduces average incomes”. A footnote explicitly describes this scenario as “a redistribution of incomes from richer countries to poorer countries.”
Ian Turner
Karma: 112
ChatGPT bug leaked users’ conversation histories
If people do use chatbots to help with pro se litigation, then that opens a possible legal theory of liability against AI companies, namely that AI chatbots (or the companies that run them) are practicing law without a license.
Of course, this could extend to other related licensure violations, such as practicing medicine without a license.
It seems plausible to me that legal liability issues could be used to slow down AI development, at least in the West. But that doesn’t mean that donating to legal assistance would be a good use of funds. My sense is that there are many plaintiffs armed with plenty of money to fund their own lawsuits, and some of those lawsuits have already happened.
What might be helpful, however, would be amicus briefs from AI alignment, development, or governance organizations, arguing that AI developers should face liability for errors in or misuse of their products. That seems like something that EA funders might want to consider?
A timely question. I have seen some recent media coverage about other possible legal theories of liability:
The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece this week about a theory of libel for falsely defamatory information produced by AI: ChatGPT Libeled Me. Can I Sue?
The Economist published an article this week about the interaction of AI and copyright law, drawing an analogy to the effects of Napster on the market for recorded music and highlighting the lawsuit between Getty Images and Stability AI over data collection: A battle royal is brewing over copyright and AI
That may be true; but for anyone tempted to try it, just a reminder that
the values here are for “good/lucky” trips and there is no guarantee e.g. LSD will feel good on a given occasion
You may want to have a look at Logarithmic Scales of Pleasure and Pain if you haven’t already.
How should we think about the 17% response rate to this survey? Is it possible that researchers who are more concerned about alignment are also more likely to complete the survey?
Do you think this is not due to “sound legal advice”?
In my experience, an extremely common lay objection to GiveDirectly is something along the lines of, “Won’t recipients waste the money on alcohol/drugs/tobacco/luxuries/etc.?”, with a second-tier objection of, “Won’t cash transfers cause inflation/conflict/dependence/etc.?”.
I think both these questions have been pretty well addressed by the research, but those who are not aware of (or do not trust) that research are, I think, pretty likely to believe that cash transfers are neutral or harmful.
Actually I think the popular concept is that cash transfers are neutral or harmful. That’s one reason why there was no charity like GiveDirectly until ~15 years ago, and arguably GiveDirectly would not exist today without funding from EA sources. The earliest news coverage I could find about GiveDirectly is not until 2011 (Time/NPR/Boston.com) and two of those pieces described it as “radical”.
Possibly this analysis is correct, but with respect to affiliate links rather than Google ads?
I love the idea of this but I wish the recommendations were more evidence-based. For example I was a bit disappointed to see blue-light blocking glasses on the list given that
A recent study suggested that blue light-blocking glasses do not improve symptoms of digital eye strain. The American Academy of Ophthalmology does not recommend blue light-blocking glasses because of the lack of scientific evidence that blue light is damaging to the eyes.
It seems like this study is drawing parallels between trans fat bans in developed countries and hypothetical trans fat bans in low or middle income countries; but governance in these countries ca n look quite different. For example, it’s possible that trans fat bans’ effectiveness would be offset somewhat through bribes to corrupt officials, or just that generally increasing government budgets to enforce the bans could result in patronage that entrenches poor-performing governments.
Have you thought about these potential offsetting impacts or if there is any information on if or to what degree they materialize in practice?
Is it possible that banning trans fats could make foods more expensive? And if so, have you considered the magnitude/importance of this offsetting impact?
However, excess capital losses can be rolled over. So if you expect to ever incur taxable capital gains in your lifetime, then incurring capital losses now can still be good tax planning.
The space colonization scenario doesn’t offer the possibility of infinite utility though? Just very large but finite utility?
Regardless of whether or not you think the universe is infinite, my understanding is that the part of the universe that is reachable without faster-than-light travel is still finite.
Personally if I had these experiences I would think it’s much more likely that I have gone insane and that these experiences are hallucinations.
Just a note that GiveWell started out with many cause areas including “US Equality of Opportunity” and it was only after a few years of work that they realized that their other causes (besides global health and development) were not really justifying continued research.
I suppose it depends on the definition of poverty that you want to use, but if we are talking about the global poverty line, redistribution would easily be adequate. There are individual people alive today with adequate assets.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/01/20/the-global-poverty-gap-is-falling-billionaires-could-help-close-it/