As an EA and a Christian... I find Thiel's apparent views and actions to me resemble what the Bible says an Antichrist is, more than EA by far. He is hypocritically calling EA totalitarian while simultaneously, deeply supporting what amounts to technofascism in the U.S.

It is bizarre to me how unchristian his version of libertarianism is, with what seems like a complete indifference, if not utter disdain, towards the poor and downtrodden who Jesus sought to help. Thiel seems to be so far from the spirit of Christian values (at least as I understand them) that I have a hard time imagining what could be further from it.

I could go on, but people like this, who call themselves Christian and yet appear to be the polar opposite of what a good Christian ought to be (again, in my opinion) infuriate me to the point that I have trouble expressing things without getting angry, so I'll stop here.

The percentage of EAs earning to give is too low

I'm not very confident in this view, but I'm philosophically somewhat against encouraging Earning-To-Give as it can justify working at what I see as unethical high paying jobs (i.e. finance, the oil industry, AI capabilities, etc.) and pretending you can simply offset it with enough donations. I think actions like this condone the unethical, making it more socially acceptable and creating negative higher order effects, and that we shouldn't do this. It's also a slippery slope and entails ends justifies the means thinking, like what SBF seems to have thought, and I think we should be cautious about potentially following such an example.

I also, separately, think that we should respect the autonomy of the people making decisions about their careers, and that those who want to EtG and who have the personal fit for it are likely already doing that, and suggesting more people should do so is somewhat disrespectful of the autonomy and ability to make rational, moral decisions of those who choose otherwise.

Quick question! What's the best way to handle having long gaps on your resume?

So, I used to be a research scientist in AI/ML at Huawei Canada (circa 2017-2019), which on paper should make me a good candidate for AI technical safety work. However, in recent years I pivoted into game development, mostly because an EA friend and former moral philosophy lecturer pitched the idea of a Trolley Problem game to me and my interviews with big tech had gone nowhere (I now have a visceral disdain for Leetcode). Unfortunately, the burn rate of the company now means I can't be paid anymore, so I'm looking around at other things again.

Back in 2022, I went to EA Global Washington DC and got some interviews with AI safety startups like FAR and Generally Intelligent, but couldn't get past the technical interviews. As such, I'm not sure I'm actually qualified to be an AI safety technical researcher. I also left Huawei in part due to mental health issues making it difficult to work in such a high stress environment.

I've also considered doing independent AI safety research, and applied to the LTFF before and been rejected without feedback. I also applied to 80,000 Hours a while back and was also rejected.

Regularly reading the EA Forums and Less Wrong makes me continue to think AI safety work is the most important thing I could do, but at the same time, I have doubts I won't mess up and waste people's time and money that could go to more capable people and projects. I also have a family now, so I can't just move to the Bay Area/London and burn my life for the cause either.

What should I do?

I should point out that the natural tendency for civilizations to fall appears to apply to subsets of the human civilization, rather than the entirety of humanity historically. While locally catastrophic, these events were not existential, as humanity survived and recovered.

I'd also argue that the collapse of a civilization requires far more probabilities to go to zero and has greater and more complex causal effects than all time machines just failing to work when tried.

And, the reality is that at this time we do not know if the Non-Cancel Principle is true or false, and whether or not the universe will prevent time travel. Given this, we face the dilemma that if we precommit to not developing time travel and time travel turns out to be possible, then we have just limited ourselves and will probably be outcompeted by a civilization that develops time travel instead of us.

Ah, that makes sense! Thanks for the clarification.

Why would the only way to prevent timeline collapse be to prevent civilizations from achieving black hole-based time travel? Why not just have it so that whenever such time travel is attempted, any attempts to actually change the timeline simply fail mysteriously and events end up unfolding as they did regardless?

Like, you could still go back as a tourist and find out if Jesus was real, or scan people's brains before they die and upload them into the future, but you'd be unable to make any changes to history, and anything you did would actually end up bringing about the events as they originally occurred.

I also don't see how precommitting to anything will escape the "curse". The universe isn't an agent we can do acausal trade with. Applying the Anthropic Principle, we either are not the type of civilization that will ever develop time travel, or there is no "curse" that prevents civilizations like ours from developing time travel. Otherwise, we already shouldn't exist as a civilization.

So, it seems like most of the existential risks from time travel are only if the Non-Cancel Principle you described is false? It also seems like the Non-Cancel Principle also prevents most time paradoxes, so that seems like strong evidence towards it being true?

It seems like the Non-Cancel Principle would lead to only two possible ways time travel could go about. Either everything "already happened" and so time travel can only cause events to happen as they did (i.e. Tenet), meaning no actual changes or new timelines are possible (no free will), or alternatively, time travel branches the timeline, creating new timelines in a multiverse of possible worlds (in which case, where did the energy for this timeline come from if Conservation of Energy holds?).

I find the latter option more interesting for science fiction, but I think the former probably makes more sense from a physics perspective. I would really like to be wrong on this though, because useful time travel would be really cool and possibly the most important and valuable technology that one could have (that or ASI).

Anyway, interesting write up! I've personally spent a lot of time thinking about time travel and its possible mechanics, as it's a fascinating concept to me.

P.S. This is Darklight from Less Wrong.

I mean, that innate preference for oneself isn't objective in the sense of being a neutral outsider view of things. If you don't see the point of having an objective "point of view of the universe" view about stuff, then sure, there's no reason to care about this version of morality. I'm not arguing that you need to care, only that it would be objective and possibly truth tracking to do so, that there exists a formulation of morality that can be objective in nature.

I guess the main intuitional leap that this formulation of morality takes is the idea that if you care about your own preferences, you should care about the preferences of others as well, because if your preferences matter objectively, theirs do as well. If your preferences don't matter objectively, why should you care about anything at all?

The principle of indifference as applied here is the idea that given that we generally start with maximum uncertainty about the various sentients in the universe (no evidence in any direction about their worth or desert), we should assign equal value to each of them and their concerns. It is admittedly an unusual use of the principle.