Hot take: When Anthropic IPO money starts flowing into AI safety, the ecosystem should consider operating more outside charitable structures. Charities get an indirect public subsidy via tax-deductible donations, but the trade-off is greater compliance burden and cost, restrictions on spending, and a greater reliance on public goodwill. As the world gets weirder from AI-driven job losses and political shifts, taxpayers may be less happy to see their foregone tax dollars going to China dialogues or high salaries for technical AI safety researchers. (Not legal or financial advice.)
Re your suggested solution, the reverse approach might be more implementable? Have a shorter, highlights-version of the episode published on a second channel, possibly with some delay to factor in the extra editing time needed? As main channel episodes have to be more polished than 2nd channel episodes, and I'd personally prefer longer, more in-depth podcasts to be prioritised by being on the main channel.
What are your thoughts on taking projects that want to be able to take both charitable and for-profit funding in the long term? (Whether to eg eventually have both a charity and a for-profit entity, or just wanting the flexibility to pick one path or the other after testing things out)
I don’t think you’re being confrontational, I just think you’re over-complicating someone saying they support things that might bring AGI forward to 2035 instead of 2045 because otherwise it will be too late for their older relatives. And it’s not that motivating to debate things that feel like over-complications.
The reason why "everyone [he] know[s]" will be dead is because everyone will be dead, in that scenario.
We are already increasing maximum human lifespan, so I wouldn't be surprised if many people who are babies now are still alive in 100 years. And even if they aren't, there's still the element of their wellbeing while they are alive being affected by concerns about the world they will be leaving their own children to.
Prioritising young people often makes sense from an impartial welfare standpoint, because young people have more years left, so there is more welfare to be affected. With voting in particular, it’s the younger people who have to deal with the longer term consequences of any electoral outcome. You see this in climate change related critiques of the Baby Boomer generation.
See eg
“Effective altruism can be defined by four key values: …
2. Impartial altruism: all people count equally — effective altruism aims to give everyone’s interests equal weight, no matter where or when they live. When combined with prioritisation, this often results in focusing on neglected groups…”
Hot take: When Anthropic IPO money starts flowing into AI safety, the ecosystem should consider operating more outside charitable structures. Charities get an indirect public subsidy via tax-deductible donations, but the trade-off is greater compliance burden and cost, restrictions on spending, and a greater reliance on public goodwill. As the world gets weirder from AI-driven job losses and political shifts, taxpayers may be less happy to see their foregone tax dollars going to China dialogues or high salaries for technical AI safety researchers. (Not legal or financial advice.)
Did you end up receiving the data?
Strong agree
Re your suggested solution, the reverse approach might be more implementable? Have a shorter, highlights-version of the episode published on a second channel, possibly with some delay to factor in the extra editing time needed? As main channel episodes have to be more polished than 2nd channel episodes, and I'd personally prefer longer, more in-depth podcasts to be prioritised by being on the main channel.
What are your thoughts on taking projects that want to be able to take both charitable and for-profit funding in the long term? (Whether to eg eventually have both a charity and a for-profit entity, or just wanting the flexibility to pick one path or the other after testing things out)
It seems to be just the one overconfident young guy
I’m not sure if others share this intuition, but most of this gives off AI-generated vibes fyi
I don’t think you’re being confrontational, I just think you’re over-complicating someone saying they support things that might bring AGI forward to 2035 instead of 2045 because otherwise it will be too late for their older relatives. And it’s not that motivating to debate things that feel like over-complications.
We are already increasing maximum human lifespan, so I wouldn't be surprised if many people who are babies now are still alive in 100 years. And even if they aren't, there's still the element of their wellbeing while they are alive being affected by concerns about the world they will be leaving their own children to.
Prioritising young people often makes sense from an impartial welfare standpoint, because young people have more years left, so there is more welfare to be affected. With voting in particular, it’s the younger people who have to deal with the longer term consequences of any electoral outcome. You see this in climate change related critiques of the Baby Boomer generation.
See eg
“Effective altruism can be defined by four key values: …
2. Impartial altruism: all people count equally — effective altruism aims to give everyone’s interests equal weight, no matter where or when they live. When combined with prioritisation, this often results in focusing on neglected groups…”
https://80000hours.org/2020/08/misconceptions-effective-altruism/