Comments
58
...
Curated and popular this week
77
Crossposted to Less Wrong
‘Like most of life’s dangers, the dangers of artificial intelligence are not easily identified from the armchair.’
J Dmitri Gallow
Epistemic status
I’m not an expert in this field, and herein I make some sweeping generalisations educated guesses about the overall...
51
TL;DR: EA has traditionally deprioritized climate change as a cause area. But a new report from Rethink Priorities, an EA research institute, suggests that specific Earth systems risks driven by climate change could have mortality impacts comparable to major global health burdens, on top of the known damages of climate change.
The report finds that research and governance work on ‘Earth Systems Stabilization’ to establish whether safe options to address th...
Recent opportunities to take action
Timeline Swapping
Alice, a highly experienced ML researcher, thinks crunch time for AI will come in 20-30 years. She spends quite a bit of her time community-building for AI safety, i.e. maximizing her impact if crunch time is in 20-30 years rather than if it is now.
Bob, a newer researcher with less skills, thinks we’re in crunch time now. He might try to take a role at a current AI org that maximizes his current impact but isn’t spectacular for developing career capital.
It seems like if Alice and Bob could coordinate properly, Alice would operate under Bob’s timelines, Bob under Alice’s, and both would be better off.
Has anyone written more about this idea?
See: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/tag/moral-trade
I also had a tentative thing that argued for something similar to the OP (epistemic rather than moral trade).
It's technically trade, rather than moral trade, but yes, that's likely a useful resource.