Helping high-impact orgs can be high-impact.

Whether that is through IT, HR, or providing food.

Not everyone needs to be a high-level researcher, and I think it is fine to list jobs that have very different skill requirements than the typical 80k-advertized job.

Is there a reason why you are focusing on compute and not salaries? The example numbers you use are rather low compared to the yearly salary of a single AIS researcher.

If you and me and all of humanity gets killed by AI and turned into paperclips, that would be an unprecedented moral catastrophe. If the AIs that killed all of us stay around and enjoy having more paperclips, that is still extremely bad. The very act of killing us makes these AIs not a worthy successor of the human species.

This suggests that proposing to pause AI today is like proposing to pause electricity in 1880

The prospect of AI killing all of us makes these very different. Yes, in both cases a pause will probably slow GDP growth. But humans should be willing to accept lower GDP if this notably reduces the chance of all humans being killed.

warning the Tesla founder his wealth would go to “left-wing nonprofits that will be chosen by Bill Gates."

Am I missing something or does this argument make no sense? As far as I can tell, Musk can easily fulfill his giving pledge by giving to his preferred not-left-wing nonprofits without deferring to Bill Gates.

I don't think so.

Some less tribalistic hypotheses I can think of:

• EAs concerned about animal welfare have typically focused on farmed animals, as opposed to animal testing, because of the much larger scale of the suffering
• EAs mostly haven't heard of it.
• Maybe some EAs have heard about it, but they don't think it is worth the effort to write a post about it.

But tribalistic explanations could be a factor too (e.g. MAHA has anti-science vibes, and EAs like to stay on the pro-science side).

(This is probably not the most constructive feedback, but my initial reaction to this short form was that it felt like a right-wing analog of left-wing "Why don't the EAs tweet about Gaza?"-style criticisms).

I think halting undecidability and Rice's theorem are being misapplied here. It is true that no algorithm can determine, for every possible program and input, whether that program will halt. But for specific programs and inputs, it is often possible to figure out whether they halt or not.

I agree that there is no method that allows us to check all possible AGI designs for a specific nontrivial behavioral property. But this does not forbid us to select an AGI design for which we can prove that it has a specific behavioral property!

Can you say more on why you think a 1:24 ratio is the right one (as opposed to lower or higher ratios)? And how might this ratio differ for people who have different beliefs than you, for example about xrisk, LTFF, or the evilness of these companies?

I do not recall seeing this usage in AI safety or LW circles. Can you link to examples?