Recent Topic Activity
Renamed because I couldn't create a new topic but I want to test the debate week features
The Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund (previously the Effective Altruism Meta Fund, commonly called "EAIF") is an expert-managed fund focused on building effective altruism. It is one of the four funds run by Effective Altruism Funds (EA Funds). As of August 2022, it has funded payouts for over $9.2 million.
Renamed because I couldn't create a new topic but I want to test the debate week features
Note that this notion is relative to the agent's situation: for example, a technology that would allow one to dominate the world in year 1000 might no longer be sufficient today.
A decisive strategic advantage is a position of strategic superiority sufficient to allow an agent to achieve complete world domination.
Note that this notion is relative to the agent's situation: a technology that would allow one to dominate the world in year 1000 might no longer be sufficient today.
The Effective altruism in Japanese tag collects EA Forum posts written in the Japanese language and posts about the EA community in Japan.
External links
Related entries
effective altruism in French | effective altruism in German | effective altruism in Spanish
The Effective altruism in Japanese tag collects EA Forum posts written in the Japanese language and posts about the EA community in Japan.
External links
Related entries
Asia | effective altruism in French | effective altruism in German | effective altruism in Spanish | translation
Interventions that aim to reduce these risks can be split into:
- Technical alignment - research on how to align AI
safety assystems with human or moral goals - AI governance - reducing AI risk by e.g. global coordination around regulating AI development or providing incentives for corporations to be more cautious in their AI research
- AI forecasting - predicting AI capabilities ahead of time
Reading on why AI might be an existential risk
Cotra, Ajeya (2022) Without specific countermeasures, the easiest path to transformative AI likely leads to AI takeoverEffective Altruism Forum, July 18
Carlsmith, Joseph (2022) Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?Arxiv, 16 June
Yudkowsky, Eliezer (2022) AGI Ruin: A List of LethalitiesLessWrong, June 5
Ngo et al (2023) The alignment problem from a careerdeep learning perspectiveArxiv, February 23
80,000 Hours' medium-depth investigation rates technical AI safety research a "priority path"—among the most promising career opportunities the organization has identified so far.[1][2]
AI safety and AI risk is sometimes referred to as a Pascal's Mugging [3]1], implying that the risks are tiny and that for any stated level of ignorable risk the the payoffs could be exaggerated to force it to still be a top priority. A response to this is that in a survey of 700 ML researchers, the median answer to the "the probability that the long-run effect of advanced AI on humanity will be “extremely bad (e.g., human extinction)” was 5% with, with 48% of respondents giving 10% or higher[4]2]. These probabilites are too high (by at least 5 orders of magnitude) to be consider Pascalian.
Further reading on arguments against AI Safety
Grace, Katja (2022) Counterarguments to the basic AI x-risk caseEA Forum, October 14
Garfinkel, Ben (2020) Scrutinising classic AI risk arguments80000 Hours Podcast, July 9
AI safety as a career
80,000 Hours' medium-depth investigation rates technical AI safety research a "priority path"—among the most promising career opportunities the organization has identified so far.[3][4] Richard Ngo and Holden Karnofsky also have advice for those interested in working on AI Safety[5][6].
AI alignment | AI governance | AI forecasting| AI takeoff | AI race | Economics of artificial intelligence |AI interpretability | AI risk | cooperative AI | building the field of AI safety |
^Todd, Benjamin (2018)The highest impact career paths our research has identified so far,80,000 Hours, August 12.^Todd, Benjamin (2021)AI safety technical research,80,000 Hours, October.- ^
https://twitter.com/amasad/status/1632121317146361856 The CEO of Replit, a coding organisation who are involved in ML Tools
- ^
- ^
Todd, Benjamin (2023) The highest impact career paths our research has identified so far, 80,000 Hours, May 12.
- ^
Hilton, Benjamin (2023) AI safety technical research, 80,000 Hours, June 19th
- ^
Ngo, Richard (2023) AGI safety career advice, EA Forum, May 2
- ^
Karnofsky, Holden (2023), Jobs that can help with the most important century, EA Forum, Feb 12
The Upside-focused Colonist Curse (UCC) evokes -- in a space colonization context -- a potential selection dynamic favoring agents and civilizations that arehave little concerned aboutconcern for the suffering they might be responsible for (Buhler 2023).
The Upside-focused Colonist Curse (UCC) evokes -- in a space colonization context -- a potential selection dynamic favoring agents and civilizations that are little concerned about the suffering they might be responsible for (Buhler 2023).
This potential selection effect is due to the fact that concern for suffering seems particularly unadapted to space colonization races and therefore somewhat likely to be selected against among powerful civilizations or stakeholders in a space expansion context.
While it is unclear whether we should expect this effect to be significant relative to other competing dynamics, it has quite strong implications for longtermist cause prioritization if it is.
Further reading
Jim Buhler (2023) Why we may expect our successors not to care about suffering
The Upside-focused Colonist Curse (UCC) evokes -- in a space colonization context -- a potential selection dynamic favoring agents and civilizations that have little concern for the suffering they might be responsible for (Buhler 2023).
This potential selection effect is due to the fact that concern for suffering seems particularly unadapted to space colonization races and therefore somewhat likely to be selected against among powerful civilizations or stakeholders in a space expansion context.
While it is unclear whether we should expect this effect to be significant relative to other competing dynamics, it has quite strong implications for longtermist cause prioritization if it is....
The instrumental convergence thesis is the allegedhypothesised overlap in instrumental goals expected to be exhibited by a broad class of advanced AI systems, due to their usefulness for the attainment of a wide range of possible final goals.
Notable Giving What We Can members include Sam Bankman-Fried, Nick Beckstead, Liv Boeree, Rachel Glennerster, Jim Greenbaum, Michael Kremer, William MacAskill, Dylan Matthews, Derek Parfit, Kelsey Piper, Janet Radcliffe Richards, Peter Singer, and Eva Vivalt.[1]
The criticism of effective altruism culture tag covers criticism of behaviors, norms, and dynamics in the effective altruism community, as opposed to criticism of effective altruist causes, organizations, philosophy, or philosophywork in effective altruism.
building effective altruism | community | criticism of effective altruism | criticism of effective altruist causes | criticism of effective altruist organizations | criticism of work in effective altruism | effective altruism culture
Some worry that employing aid to tackle these issues is
problematic.problematic — People in effective altruism have sought to address several of these concerns, including worries about aid effectiveness and aid and paternalism.See here for a list of organizations working on global health and development.