This post is co-authored with Ben Garfinkel. It is cross-posted from the CEA blog. A PDF version can be found here.
Summary: Some strategic decisions available to the effective altruism m...
TL;DR: I'm releasing a website that ranks philanthropists according to EA principles and research, and allows users to re-rank the list using their own assumptions. I'd like feedback and help making it better. I'd especially like ideas for how to make the results more trustworthy. Funding may be available.
Crossposted to LessWrong.
...
Disclaimer: Although I work on the Groups Team at CEA, I’m writing this in a personal capacity, and this post does not constitute an endorsement by CEA.
Agency - the realisation that you really can just do things.
TL;DR
Biosecurity needs people (of any background) who are agentic and have a high execution velocity and track record....
Thanks for sharing this.
What’s your view on “why doesn’t OpenAI slow down work on capabilities to allow more time for alignment research?”
Is it
OpenAI is worried that Deepmind might build AGI before OpenAI, and OpenAI is worried that Deepmind is more likely to build AGI unsafely or misuse it
OpenAI is worried that another group we aren’t aware of yet might build AGI before OpenAI and Deepmind, and OpenAI is worried that this group is more likely to build AGI unsafely or misuse it
OpenAI is already only scaling up capabilities where it allows them to do better alignment research
OpenAI is in practice prioritising revenue over existential risk mitigation, despite claiming not to
something else / a mix
I think that OpenAI is not worried about actors like DeepMind misusing AGI, but (a) is worried about actors that might not currently be on most people's radar misusing AGI, (b) thinks that scaling up capabilities enables better alignment research (but sees other benefits to scaling up capabilities too) and (c) is earning revenue for reasons other than direct existential risk reduction where it does not see a conflict in doing so.