Human Challenge Trials as a wiki entry(less so as a tag)
An idea I think a sizeable portion of people here are sympathetic to and the entry could act as a good companion to entries like 1Day Sooner and COVID-19 pandemic
Important as a wiki topic to give short description of this policy proposal and relevant links/papers/discussion- as it seems like an important output of AI Governance literature/studies.
Tag as potential future posts may discuss/critique the idea(e.g. second post below)
Strong identities are epistemically sub-optimal(i.e. if you are an agent whose exclusive concern is to hold true beliefs, then holding strong identities is likely to harm that project) - but they may be socially expedient (perhaps necessary) in that they facilitate cooperation (by encapsulating views and motives)
which is more or less a podcast version of the Vox Article by Dylan Matthew, where the link (and Hickel's response) can be found in Max_Daniel's very helpful list of links.
(1) Is this a fair/unfair summary of the argument?
P1 We should be indifferent on anti-speciesist grounds whether humans or some other intelligence life form enjoy a grand future.
P2 The risk of extinction of only humans is strictly lower than the risk of extinction of humans + all future possible (non human) intelligent life form.
C Therefore we should revise downwards the value of avoiding the former/raise the value of the latter.
(2) Is knowledge about current evolutionary trajectories of non-human animals today likely to completely inform us about 're-evolution'? What are the relevant considerations?
Is there a potential naming collision with https://www.asteriskjournal.org ? Are you going with 'asteriskmag' as the domain name perhaps?
Human Challenge Trials as a wiki entry(less so as a tag)
An idea I think a sizeable portion of people here are sympathetic to and the entry could act as a good companion to entries like 1Day Sooner and COVID-19 pandemic
Thanks Pablo! Looks great! I really appreciate your work on the wiki.
Windfall Clause (under Global Catastrophic Risk (AI))
Justification:
Posts that it could apply to:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/iYCAoP3JgXxGAvMrr/fhi-report-the-windfall-clause-distributing-the-benefits-of
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wBzfLyfJFfocmdrwL/the-windfall-clause-has-a-remedies-problem
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/eCihFiTmg748Mnoac/cullen-o-keefe-the-windfall-clause-sharing-the-benefits-of
Thank your for this piece Lizka!
To what extent do you agree with the following?
Patient philanthropy?
Adding one more (hopefully relevant) link:
Dylan Matthews on “Global poverty has fallen, but what should we conclude from that?”
which is more or less a podcast version of the Vox Article by Dylan Matthew, where the link (and Hickel's response) can be found in Max_Daniel's very helpful list of links.
Hey! Your link sends us to this very post. Is this intentional?
Thank you for this post! Very interesting.
(1) Is this a fair/unfair summary of the argument?
P1 We should be indifferent on anti-speciesist grounds whether humans or some other intelligence life form enjoy a grand future.
P2 The risk of extinction of only humans is strictly lower than the risk of extinction of humans + all future possible (non human) intelligent life form.
C Therefore we should revise downwards the value of avoiding the former/raise the value of the latter.
(2) Is knowledge about current evolutionary trajectories of non-human animals today likely to completely inform us about 're-evolution'? What are the relevant considerations?
Additionally, is it not likely that those scenarios are correlated?