Bio

Participation
3

MSc in applied mathematics/theoretical ML.

Interested in increasing diversity, transparency and democracy in the EA movement. Would like to know how algorithm developers can help "neartermist" causes.

Comments
987

Topic contributions
1

Extinction perhaps not, but I think eternal autocracy is definitely possible.

Elon Musk has already used this power to do actions which will potentially kill millions (by funding the Trump campaign enough to get to close down USAID). I think that should worry us, and the chance of people amassing even more power should worry us even more.

Re: helping people in our communities

I'd respond that's it's not an either/or situation. I do donate to help the local community (for different senses of "local"), but there too:

  1. I try to understand what is more effective within that space - e.g. EA Israel did a project at some point of trying to quantify the impact of charities operating within Israel, and they have a donation portal for the recommended charities.
  2. I remember that all the people who are currently suffering keep existing even if I don't see them in my neighbourhood. And my money, even personally, can have an impact there in the order of magnitude of saving a child's life.

What do you think their counterfactual is? I don't think any of what they've been doing is really transferable.

Not trying to answer on the author's behalf, but it seems relatively clear to me that differential development is possible here: so far most advancements in science seem to have come from biological applications like AlphaFold that are distinct from the LLMs that have created most problems both in the eyes of "doomers" and in the eyes of people warning about current non-extinction dangers. Therefore the development of beneficial tools can in theory be accelerated while the development of LLMs is slowed down.

Small note: I don't know if it's my own English at fault, but I interpreted "7x below the WHO threshold" as meaning "7 times worse than the threshold" and only understood the actual meaning as I looked at the actual numbers later. Might be worth wording it differently.

Great result I think!

Mentioned many real dangers, gave a pretty realistic outlook, and was approachable and funny without making it all look ridiculous.

Well, you can now see that you don't know who upvoted your comment (but it was me).

I'm not sure if admins know or not.

I'd argue that this doesn't measure the harms I was talking about.

Still, I like that you replied to a 3 year old comment with actual data.

Sorry for being this blunt, but EA is about using evidence and reason to identify the most effective ways to help others. I can't possibly see how operating on a vague guess is on par with that.

This criticism is independent of the fact that I still claim a "negative life" is not a concept we should incorporate into moral theories, and that we definitely shouldn't aim to just cull all animals whose lives we somehow think are negative.

Load more