Addressing Global Poverty as a Strategy to Improve the Long-Term Future (havent read yet)
Flow-through effects (have read)
Good point, and GiveWell would probably have figured that one out
Mayyybe it would have bought slave’s freedom one by one instead? (I don’t know; just speculating)
Another angle (/ piece of the puzzle) to compare different decision-making processes
Also safer technological progress, which is where a significant chunk of the x-risks are coming from. I don’t think this would influence the probability of stable dictatorships.
those are not inducement prizes
I intend to update this answer as I think of more.
Creating a gamete from a stem cell (to enable [iterated embryo selection](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/iterated-embryo-selection))
Reanimating a cryonics patient (although, creating a prize that long in advance will probably not create a market pressure in the short term)
First human to achieve some level of intelligence (as measured by some IQ test) (prize split between the person and the genetic engineering lab) (this is more about the social incentive than economical one, as I suppose there’s already an economical one)
the community, yes. the practice / approach, no.
FYI, Hunter says you can have residency in Paraguay easily, and only need to stay 1 day per year to maintain it
I might be interested in hanging out in Panama, but idk if i want the citizenship
If a non-profit organization is:
not solving some public good (in the economic sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics))
not redistributing money directly
not helping agents that can’t help themselves / use money
not helping the donor directly
relying on donations
it’s probably mostly done for signaling purposes and/or misguided
it’s likely performing worse than the average company
although there could be less efficient ways of redistributing money that would arguably be better than the average company
Good thinking. Names and currency (along with status) are one of the few things you have less when others have more, and so benefit from being put on the blockchain
so am understanding you have short AI timelines, and so don’t think genetic engineering would have time to pay off, but psychedelics would, and that you think it’s of similar relevance as working directly on the problem
thanks for your answer!
Genetic engineering doesn’t seem to have a comparable track record or a comparable evidence base.
You get humans from primates with genetic modifications, not psychedelic :)
oh, by bad. apologies. thanks for the quote!
in terms of augmenting humans, my impression is that genetic engineering is by far the most effective intervention. my understanding is that we’re currently making a lot of progress in that area, yet some important research aspects seem neglected, and could have a transformative impact on the world.
I wonder if you disagree
I feel like the burden of proof is on you, no? how will psychedelics help avoid astronomical waste?
I guess I was working on the assumption that it was rare that people would want to split their donation between local and effective a priori, and my point was that GM wasn’t useful to people that didn’t already want to split their donations in that way before GM’s existence—but maybe this assumption is wrong actually
hummm, I guess it’s fine after all. I change my mind. People can just give whatever fraction they were going to give to local charities, and then be matched. And the extra matching to effective charities is a signal from the matcher about their model of the world. I don’t think someone that was going to give 100% to another charity than those 9 should use GivingMultiplier though (unless they changed their mind about effective charities). But my guess is that this project has good consequences.