@Gemma 🔸 I think you mentioned doing something like this? Or was it for the GWWC pledge in particular?

Great to have you here Ahmed! 
I'd recommend Probably Good's career advising, if you've got the time. 

Just listened - really enjoyed it!
I recommend for:

• Elijah's enthusiasm
• Michael's clear reasoning
• A whistlestop overview of the development of Michael's ethics (especially, scepticism of kneejerk utilitarian ways of measuring and comparing wellbeing).

Also, seconding Elijah in the intro (though EAs doubtless need no excuse) speeding the podcast up to 1.5x was great. 

Yep quick takes are the best spot for more speculative, early stage, or short thoughts :) 

Very cool, will listen. Have you considered posting a transcript? It's super easy with AI now (use one AI to make a transcript, and another one to clean it up and make it more grammatical). 

Hey Clara, congrats on taking the pledge!
My guess on this question is that you'd need a lot more people to give before you saw macro-economic effects. But people's giving does differ greatly country to country, so I'm sure there is some economic work on the effects of that on savings, investment, wages etc!
Also- welcome to the Forum! Let me know if you have any questions about how it works. 

This is just a quick note to let you know that polls-in-posts weren't just for DIY debate week. You can use them at any time.

More about the feature, and how to use it, in this post. 

Fantastic! I've linked it at the bottom of the post.

Should EA avoid using AI art for non-research purposes?

Treating "agree" as "yes"

I think the strongest reason against (using AI art for non-research purposes) for me is the idea of all the uncompensated art that made up the data. It's a bit of an original sin for AI in general (including text generation), and not one which we've found a good response to. 

Reasons for (using AI art for non-research purposes):
- It makes sense for EAs to adopt a place in the memetic space where we think that AI is and will be very powerful (and therefore it's important to learn how to use it), and it's likely to be very dangerous. I don't think there is a contradiction there, and avoiding the use of AI would be increasingly hobbling. This is relevant because I don't think we can make a clean distinction between AI generated art and AI generated text - both are likely built on an amount of stolen/ un-compensated data. 
- Using AI images (like bulby above) is just a bit of fun, i.e. the scale of use is pretty small - this correlates with this not being a very big deal. 

- A lot of the concerns are hypothetical comms concerns, I'd take this more seriously if things played out that way, but right now I'd guess that the anti-AI-use camp is fairly loud but not strategically useful. And since I disagree with them for the other reasons above, I'd rather not pretend that I do for optics reasons. 

Overall: I'm definitely open to changing my mind on this. I especially don't feel like I have a principled response to the un-compensated labour that went into creating AI, and it'd be great to have one. 

This is helpful. If this was actually for a debate week, I'd have made it 'more than 5% extinction risk this century' and (maybe) excluded risks from AI.