I'm finding the app feedback misleading and none of the explanations in the About/FAQ page are expanding in my Chrome and Opera.

1. Would you choose to save the 100 now and kill the thousands later? Does it make a difference whether the toxic waste leaks out 200 years from now or 2000?

Uncomfortable maths calculations to consider in my opinion. How many descendants would these 100 people have in that timeframe? If more than stated thousands then it’s more logical to bury the toxic waste now. As my teammate said having those years of time to develop a technology to detox the waste would be nice to count too because that can mitigate possible killings while the now death were guaranteed. But from the value of life point of view, even with inflation towards future generations, it’s better to find alternative ways of getting rid of toxic waste now. Or kill now people because there's fewer of them in the exercise description.

2. If you had known this at the time, would you have been less excited about the donation? Absolutely not. I’m fine with tedious tasks, patience towards anything except myself. But I must know that donated money would be used specifically for the purpose I donated. No other way unless I was informed and logically convinced that would be a better solution. Very unlikely convinced.

3. So when will we develop human-level AI? I don’t consider human-level that high, and we should which human we are talking about and what that term even means. If I am asked about AGI, hope it being developed in a decade. 20 years maximum. If I am asked about sentient AI, hope it will be revealed in 50 years as I want to meet her in person.

1. Yes we bury it, if the toxic waste will cause an existential catastrophe.. If it does not, then the answer is no. The 100 people we save today have a moral responsibility toward the thousands who will suffer in 200 years. Additionally, we have certainty about the 100 lives today, but only an estimate about the thousands in the future, a massive risk that cannot be ignored. Ultimately, when lives are at stake, no choice feels morally comfortable. This is a dilemma I would never wish to face.

2. I would have been less excited about the donation if my intention was to save a life in those five years.  However, I would still make the donation because my commitment is to save a life, regardless of when that happens. A life today is just as valuable as a life in 10 or even 100 years.

1. Yes, we should bury the toxic waste if leaving it uncontained would cause an existential catastrophe. If the risk does not reach that threshold, then the answer is no. The well-being of the 100 people we save today must be weighed against the suffering of thousands in the future. While we have certainty about the immediate impact, our projections for long-term harm remain probabilistic—but the potential scale of suffering makes this risk morally significant. Ethical decision-making in such cases is fraught with uncertainty, yet prioritizing actions that maximize overall well-being remains our guiding principle. This is the kind of trade-off no one would want to make, but moral responsibility compels us to act with the best available evidence.
2. Similarly, my enthusiasm for a donation might be lower if my primary goal were to save a life specifically within the next five years. However, my commitment is to maximize lives saved, regardless of the time frame. A life saved today holds the same intrinsic value as a life saved decades or even centuries from now. let us  aim to allocate resources where they generate the greatest long-term impact, ensuring that our actions create the most significant positive difference over time.

1. Toxic Waste Problem:

The 100 people living today, whoever is responsible for this toxic waste, can´t make thousands of people in 200 years pay for this mistake. It is wrong to bury the toxic waste and save people now if we are sure that this will cause even more deaths in 200 years for 2 reasons:

a) the number of people affected.

b) the lack of decision power and choice that the affected people have.

Logically speaking, it makes no sense to think differently if the leak were to happen in 2000 years and kill thousands of people, however, here I wouldn´t be so confident in my choice. To explain why I don´t feel confident, I am forced to bend and question the premises of the experiment. I hope that in 2000 years people will be more advanced and have the means to avoid toxic waste poisoning, so admitting that in 2000 years people will die because of toxic waste buried now would mean to me that we aren´t so bright and great, and we don´t have much potential. This would radically change the way I think about so many other topics.

Saving now 100 people in hopes that, later on, humans would know what to do disregards the dilemma because this implies that nobody dies (and that´s not the case, someone will die, either a hundred or thousands). Saving now 100 people puts the weight of acting on future people´s shoulders. If we didn´t bury the waste, they wouldn´t need to find a solution for it, in the first place.

Let´s imagine that we take option A and save 100 people today in the hopes of finding a way to save thousands in 200 years. Let´s imagine that this equals 6-7 generations of people (if new babies are born every 30 days on average). This means that our grandchildren´s grandchildren would be among the possibly poisoned and killed people. Let that sink in, and now, we should focus on whether future generations will be able to react fast enough. 

When is it time to start coming up with ideas to avoid or survive the leak? Is it 5 years before it happens enough? 2 months? How do they know when it will exactly happen? I wouldn´t be very confident in their ability to react in time. The second generation will trust that the third generation will come up with a solution, and the third generation will hope the same about the fourth. 

Besides, why would they care? The example of their ancestors will deter them from caring enough. Why should generations 2 to 5 pay for the research and the countermeasures for a problem that they didn´t cause, and won´t suffer? We can apply the same logic to 2000 years.

2. Donating to AMF problem:

It will be fine by me. I would trust the experts and hope that inflation rates really don´t have a negative effect on the donation´s potential, and I would hope that some technology or means needed to fight malaria get cheaper and that my donation can do better in 5 years than today. I would only be worried if AMF closes down in the meantime!

Part-I Case1 Saving or helping more is always better than a few. So the decision is always for those thousand people who are going to exist for the future 200 years. As there is every possibility that the future of humanity is going to be better if and only if we don't deliberately or ignorantly make it worse. So being a member of EA community I have every responsibility to think for those in future even they are not in a position to influence the decisions in their favour.

Case-II If the malaria rate remains high then it is a good reason to believe that my donation which cannot be used before 5 years is of atleast same value that it would have been for now. Moreover the life lost or sufferings of all child are same even if they don't exist now. Ultimate aim of my donation is to reduce suffering and death irrespective of its time or location.

PART 1

1. The lives of the 100 people living today aren't worth 10x more than the lives of the thousands living in the future, so I wouldn't bury the waste.

2. I would have still donated; I don't see much of a difference, and the time when the beneficiaries are alive isn't a morally significant factor.

PART 2 My judgement is terrible but my confidence is very low so let's hope they cancel out.

While I am not a longtermist, I would not choose an action that would directly put the lives of others at risk even in 200 years. In the scenario, we are told that the toxic waste shall leak, therefore, it’s definite that there shall be thousands of livers lost. Compared to the 100 lives that would be lost now, I would not risk that many lives even though they are far in the future. While we have talked about discount functions, it would be immoral to treat human lives in that way. 

In the second scenario where we are asked about 200 years or 2000 years, temporal discounting comes at a higher rate. Thinking that far into the future is hard because it would need me to think of other things that might have happened, such as existential catastrophes that might wipe out humanity before then. In that case, I would do more evaluation such that if I have confidence that humanity would be wiped out in that time, then I would save the 100 people in the current time. However, this would only be in a case where I am very confident that humanity shall be lost by that time, meaning the toxic waste I bury would have no effect on people in that future.

Week 5 exercise.

A. I would save 100 people now by hurrying the waste as there are high chances that technology will be advanced after a decade and we might be able to save thousands of people in the future too. I will be working to save thousands of people in the future by contributing to research. B. I'd still be excited as even if it's about someone who isn't born yet I'd still be able to save them.

A. I will safe the 100 now that needs to be saved,and in the next 200 years to come,I will work out measures or path ways,which they can follow, towards minimizing their casualties then,since it's a must,that the occurrence,must occur. B. I would still be excited because, irrespective of the timing and looking at the issues,that made the transaction not to be reflective as at when I transferred,the bottom line for me is,it was used for same purpose, irrespective of time variations.Asuch, I will not be upset about the time variation,when it was used.