I amend my previous comment to replace the phrase "seriously considered" with "considered." Also, there are many state laws against human reproductive cloning, but many states have no such laws:
I think that it's good that this proposal was seriously considered. I don't think it currently beats other megaprojects on impact/solvability/neglectedness, especially since quite a bit of genetic engineering research is already legal in the US (I am once again reminding everyone that human reproductive cloning is legal in many US states, and that it seems unlikely for blue states to enact new laws against reproductive autonomy in a post-Roe era). However, I think that it's good that this proposal was seriously considered, and there should be, on the margin, more proposals like it (in terms of large scale, outside-the-box thinking, potential "weirdness," etc.)
Last I checked, Tetlock's result on the efficacy of superforecasters vs. domain experts wasn't apples-to-apples: it was comparing individual domain expert forecasts vs. superforecaster forecasts that had been aggregated.
Do they really control the narrative in the "mainstream media," though, or just a few far-left content mills that tend to get clicks by being really outrageous?
As I understand it, there are regulations surrounding what sort of grants foreign organizations are allowed to make to people within those countries. Not an expert; just half-remembering something from a similar form.
It seems to me that, while the form/meaning distinction in this paper is certainly a fascinating one if your interests tend towards philosophy of language, this has very little to say about supposed inherent limitations of language models, and does not affect forecasts of existential risk.
As an aside, the idea that we should prioritize optics over intellectually honest exploration of the epistemic landscape is deeply harmful to effective altruism as a whole.
I think I read somewhere that GiveWell doesn't tend to report these figures because the QALY assessment system is so subjective; they instead, for charities focusing on morbidities other than death, report specific results such as "cost per case of blindness averted" or "cost per additional year of school."
I amend my previous comment to replace the phrase "seriously considered" with "considered." Also, there are many state laws against human reproductive cloning, but many states have no such laws:
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/appendix-state-laws-on-human-cloning
I think that it's good that this proposal was seriously considered. I don't think it currently beats other megaprojects on impact/solvability/neglectedness, especially since quite a bit of genetic engineering research is already legal in the US (I am once again reminding everyone that human reproductive cloning is legal in many US states, and that it seems unlikely for blue states to enact new laws against reproductive autonomy in a post-Roe era). However, I think that it's good that this proposal was seriously considered, and there should be, on the margin, more proposals like it (in terms of large scale, outside-the-box thinking, potential "weirdness," etc.)
Last I checked, Tetlock's result on the efficacy of superforecasters vs. domain experts wasn't apples-to-apples: it was comparing individual domain expert forecasts vs. superforecaster forecasts that had been aggregated.
Do they really control the narrative in the "mainstream media," though, or just a few far-left content mills that tend to get clicks by being really outrageous?
As I understand it, there are regulations surrounding what sort of grants foreign organizations are allowed to make to people within those countries. Not an expert; just half-remembering something from a similar form.
It seems to me that, while the form/meaning distinction in this paper is certainly a fascinating one if your interests tend towards philosophy of language, this has very little to say about supposed inherent limitations of language models, and does not affect forecasts of existential risk.
As an aside, the idea that we should prioritize optics over intellectually honest exploration of the epistemic landscape is deeply harmful to effective altruism as a whole.
I never denied that they have published their arguments in many places. I just can't find any such arguments that are object-level.
I didn't mean to imply that Emile Torres didn't think that this was an extinction risk. I'm sorry that I misspoke on that part.
I think I read somewhere that GiveWell doesn't tend to report these figures because the QALY assessment system is so subjective; they instead, for charities focusing on morbidities other than death, report specific results such as "cost per case of blindness averted" or "cost per additional year of school."