Comments
More from the author
Curated and popular this week
130
BLUF:
* To determine whether AI is ‘improving exponentially’, ‘hitting the wall’, or any other claim which involves a quantity or magnitude (e.g. ‘This model was a big leap/small increment’). We need a good y-axis: an interval scale of AI capability which means +1 unit always represents the same degree of ‘how much better’, in the same way +1 degree Celsius is always the same amount of ‘how much hotter’.
* Yet there is no good y-axis for AI capability. All our...
Summary
* The animal welfare movement has already seen an influx in funding and should prepare for the possibility of more.
* The EA Animal Welfare Fund is encouraging those working in animal advocacy to actively set aside time and resources now to concretely plan for scaling sustainably, and we’ll support you in doing that.
* We’re requesting advocates set concrete ambitious goals and submit plans t...
Public service announcement
1. Applications are now open for our first ever round of the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program dedicated exclusively to animal welfare. Learn more about what’s different this round here and apply...
Recent opportunities to take action
I find it disappointing they reference nuclear winter without qualifying that it is quite unlikely given today's arsenals. I would reccomend against sharing it in it's current state.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/pMsnCieusmYqGW26W/how-bad-would-nuclear-winter-caused-by-a-us-russia-nuclear
But that analysis by Luisa Rodriguez still predicts a fairly bad nuclear autumn that could kill roughly 30 to 90% of humanity.
Agreed - I do not mean to imply nuclear holocaust would not be horrible.
I do not think the FLI should cherry pick extraordinarily high numbers to make that case though, and them doing so/us sharing them doing so eats away at our epistemic commons.
I'd really rather not show that video to a well informed friend as they'd go "Wait, but I know that's wrong" and then discount other things I say about X-Risk.
Fair point. I guess the key problem is the lamentable lack of research on nuclear winter compared to other possible forms of climate change.
Google Scholar for example shows only 14,900 entries for "nuclear winter", versus 2.6 million for 'global warming', and 3 million for 'climate change'.
So, we've got roughly 375 times as much research on global warming as on nuclear winter.