Learned a new concept today! Pasting in the summary in case people don't click on the link but are still curious:
Moral injury is understood to be the strong cognitive and emotional response that can occur following events that violate a person's moral or ethical code.
Potentially morally injurious events include a person's own or other people's acts of omission or commission, or betrayal by a trusted person in a high-stakes situation. For example, health-care staff working during the COVID-19 pandemic might experience moral injury because they perceive that they received inadequate protective equipment, or when their workload is such that they deliver care of a standard that falls well below what they would usually consider to be good enough.
Unlike post-traumatic stress disorder, which can occur following threat-based trauma, potentially morally injurious events do not necessarily involve a threat to life. Rather, morally injurious events threaten one's deeply held beliefs and trust. Moral injury is not considered a mental illness. However, an individual's experiences of potentially morally injurious events can cause profound feelings of shame and guilt, and alterations in cognitions and beliefs (eg, “I am a failure”, “colleagues don't care about me”), as well as maladaptive coping responses (eg, substance misuse, social withdrawal, or self-destructive acts). It is these challenged beliefs and altered appraisals that are thought to lead to the development of mental health problems, with a 2018 meta-analysis finding that exposure to potentially morally injurious events was significantly associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and suicidality.
I am posting this because I came across this recently and found it useful and think it may be relevant to others. I would prefer to post this in short form but does not seem to have permission.
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...
Let’s imagine it’s November 2031. We’re both still here, AI is much more capable than it is today, but governments are governing, civilisation is still (mostly) civilised, and there has been no catastrophic loss of control. It just kind of didn’t happen.
What happens to the AI safety field then?
I expect people who currently believe catastrophe could happen within two or three years will start saying five or ten years. Then 15. Then ‘who cares if we’re a few decades of...
Thanks to Bruce Friedrich, Seth Ariel Green, Tobias Leenaert, Jan Willem Bolderdijk, Martine van Haperen, Herman Rohrbach, Chris Popa and Elizabeth Alvarez for comments. Claude helped structure the text. Ideas and mistakes are my own. I currently work with ProVeg International. The prize I propose would be defined and judged by an independent committee, and its money would fund scaling the winning solution(s), not ProVeg or the winner.
TL/DR
* EA could d...
Learned a new concept today! Pasting in the summary in case people don't click on the link but are still curious: