I think we should keep "neglectedness" referring to the amount of resources invested in the problem, not P(success). This seems a better fit for the "tractability" bucket.
(+1 to this approach for estimating neglectedness; I think dollars spent is a pretty reasonable place to start, even though quality adjustments might change the picture a lot. I also think it's reasonable to look at number of people.)
Looks like the estimate in the 80k article is from 2020, though the callout in the biorisk article doesn't mention it — and yeah, AIS spending has really taken off since then.
I think the OP amount should be higher because I think one should count X% of the spending on longtermist community-building as being AIS spending, for some X. [NB: I work on this team.]
I downloaded the public OP grant database data for 2022 and put it here. For 2022, the sum of all grants tagged AIS and LTist community-building is ~$155m. I think a reasonable choice of X is between 50% and 100%, so taking 75% at a whim, that gives ~$115m for 2022.
Made the front page of Hacker News. Here's the comments.
The most common pushback (and the first two comments, as of now) are from people who think this is an attempt at regulatory capture by the AI labs, though there's a good deal of pushback and (I thought) some surprisingly high-quality discussion.
Off topic: There's a line in the movie A Cinderella Story: Christmas Wish that might be applicable to you: "was also credited with helping shift the Animal Rights movement to a more utilitarian focus including a focus on chicken."
Thanks for pointing this out; it looks like there was a technical error which excluded these from the email receipt, which we've now fixed. The information was still received on our end, so you don't need to take any extra actions.
Any grantee who is affected by the collapse of FTXFF and whose work falls within our focus areas (biosecurity, AI risk, and community-building) should feel free to apply, even if they have significant runway.
For various reasons, we don’t anticipate offering any kind of program like this, and are taking the approach laid out in the post instead. Edit: We’re still working out a number of the details, and as the comment below states, people who are worried about this should still apply.
Yep, it's still active.
I think we should keep "neglectedness" referring to the amount of resources invested in the problem, not P(success). This seems a better fit for the "tractability" bucket.
(+1 to this approach for estimating neglectedness; I think dollars spent is a pretty reasonable place to start, even though quality adjustments might change the picture a lot. I also think it's reasonable to look at number of people.)
Looks like the estimate in the 80k article is from 2020, though the callout in the biorisk article doesn't mention it — and yeah, AIS spending has really taken off since then.
I think the OP amount should be higher because I think one should count X% of the spending on longtermist community-building as being AIS spending, for some X. [NB: I work on this team.]
I downloaded the public OP grant database data for 2022 and put it here. For 2022, the sum of all grants tagged AIS and LTist community-building is ~$155m. I think a reasonable choice of X is between 50% and 100%, so taking 75% at a whim, that gives ~$115m for 2022.
Made the front page of Hacker News. Here's the comments.
The most common pushback (and the first two comments, as of now) are from people who think this is an attempt at regulatory capture by the AI labs, though there's a good deal of pushback and (I thought) some surprisingly high-quality discussion.
This is an amazing thing to learn.
FWIW several people I spoke to just weren't aware subforums existed, during the time they were being piloted.
(I work at Open Phil assisting with this effort.)
Thanks for pointing this out; it looks like there was a technical error which excluded these from the email receipt, which we've now fixed. The information was still received on our end, so you don't need to take any extra actions.
(I work at Open Phil assisting with this effort.)
Any grantee who is affected by the collapse of FTXFF and whose work falls within our focus areas (biosecurity, AI risk, and community-building) should feel free to apply, even if they have significant runway.
For various reasons, we don’t anticipate offering any kind of program like this, and are taking the approach laid out in the post instead. Edit: We’re still working out a number of the details, and as the comment below states, people who are worried about this should still apply.
(I work at Open Phil assisting with this effort.)
We think that people in this situation should apply. The language was intended to include this case, but it may not have been clear.