Absoultely love this idea. Now is the time for it. I wouldn't usually be into it but I feel like if CoGi or some other funder put a million into 100 of these kind events world wide it could be a good use of money.

I fee like the latest Bill Gates podcast with Ezra klein is not a bad template for this kind of awareness event simplified of course. They minimise jargon and use understandable terms. 

Only? This seems like a huge amount of money, especially given that the reasoning is that money is hard to unlock, not just generosity. This is like a new Gates Foundation every year...

My estimate is lower than this based on giving priors. I think people will give less plus lock some of it it up in Donor advised funds.

I agree many human practises do this, and we need it to be functional.

I just hate the extreme of it we get with AI assisted writing. I don't have a perfect answer to... "this argument that AI editing regresses to a mean more a reflection of a regression toward a shared communication mechanism or a regression of creative elements"

It just makes everything sound more the-same and less human to me. This is so clear to me and so many others I don't think it needs any kind of specific test, although tests have been done.

I agree we can leave it to the author to decide how to write, but the reader/consumer needs agency to decide what and how to read as well. I want to know in advance before I read something how much AI is involved so I can decide whether to read it slowly and enjoy, skim for content or just not read at all. I think labelling systems like for food safety or "made in XXXX country" usually bring more benefit than harm and AI assisted writing is no exception.

I think this piece makes good arguments abuot AI welfare in general, but I just can't see the politics of AI moral patienthood being that messy. The current trend is likely to continue - politicians on both sides will deny AI moral patienthood and continue to enact laws that don't allow it.

I don't actually think that is unreasonable given the both near-term and long-term risks to humanity from AI. I think people will only consider the welfare of AI AFTER their own welfare and future feels safe and secure from AI. This is a very strong human instinct. Regular people want to feel safe and protected, with only the most altruistic really caring about people (or animals) outside their own communities. I don't think its fair or reasonable to expect 90% of people to care about AI welfare until AI is safe and aligned.

I think its great that a bunch of people are researching AI welfare, and I agree with a decent chunk of money going into AI welfare research, but I doubt it will have much utility in the real world for a long time. I think we're look at a pretty non-messy bipartisan political path which shuts down any consideration of AI welfare in the coming years.

Thanks I think your overall point is fair.

My problem is that AI editing still brings about a regression to the mean, and still means we lose some of the human's voice. I agree it could make writing technically "better" in one sense, but that's not my problem with AI writing. Whether AI makes writing better or not isn't important to me when it comes to this question of pre-labelling writing. My problem is that voice-authenticity and writing diversity is lost when AI is involved.

IMO AI makes writing sound more sam-ey and for me at least less interesting. Others might be more excited to read AI edited/written work. That's great!

I'm OK with AI detectors overcalling it somewhat, if someone actually is using a lot of AI in the editing process. This doesn't mean they have done anything "wrong", its just tells me in advance that AI is heavily involved.

If someone is using AI in the writing process, that's fine it's no sin. I just think everyone should be able to know and then we can choose in advance how or whether we should read it. Pangram has been a game-changer and I appreciate it a lot!

I think some donors will appreciate this approach and we have some evidence of that as RP have already raised a bunch of money for their allocated fund. But yes Moskovitz is crazy rational about giving, far more than I would be.

Fantastic article great to hear some more meta takes on this. 

Within global health, even before this money comes in, solid calculated cost effectiveness calculations are becoming less and less relevant. Unfortunately I don't think the "next rung down" on the givewell cost effectiveness bar will get most of the cash. Instead coefficient giving and others will likely give a lot of money to speculative "hits based" approaches. For example they just started a 170 million dollar fund for government technical support, which even the fund head themselves admits has very little evidence that it does much, and is very difficult to even make a cost effectiveness analysis for (although givewell did to their credit).

I suspect much of the new cash will go to those, both because and tech people like Risk and it's often easier to throw bigger amounts of money at speculative projects. I've asked a few times for coefficient giving to do a review of all their hits based giving you date - it has been long enough now that we would have seen much of what worked and what didn't.

I think ability of organizations to actually use money well might be more of a barrier than than. There's a world (which I hope for) where the best animal welfare orgs are at least saturated with money. I caution against new orgs trying to start by spending too much, to and was really impressed with the reasonableness of the recent wild animal welfare ask.

This makes a huge amount of sense to me. Especially after the Open AI hack of Australia today! Middle powers are probably the most motivated to make sure AI goes well - and they have less to slose. You can get so much more leverage by using a rudder than trying to row a ship against the current.

The idea that the only 2 countries that matter with AI are China and USA seems absurd to me. Of course they are the most important, but they are also dependent on the economy of the rest of the world. #

 Nice initiative!