So the case for the grant wasn’t “we think it’s good to make OAI go faster/better”.
I agree. My intended meaning is not that the grant is bad because its purpose was to accelerate capabilities. I apologize that the original post was ambiguous
Rather, the grant was bad for numerous reasons, including but not limited to:
It appears to have had an underwhelming governance impact (as demonstrated by the board being unable to remove Sam).
It enabled OpenAI to “safety-wash” their product (although how important this has been is unclear to me.)
From what I’ve seen at conferences and job boards, it seems reasonable to assert that the relationship between Open Phil and OpenAI has lead people to work at OpenAI.
Less important, but the grant justification appears to take seriously the idea that making AGI open source is compatible with safety. I might be missing some key insight, but it seems trivially obvious why this is a terrible idea even if you’re only concerned with human misuse and not misalignment.
Finally, it’s giving money directly to an organisation with the stated goal of producing an AGI. There is substantial negative -EV if the grant sped up timelines.
This last claim seems very important. I have not been able to find data that would let me confidently estimate OpenAI’s value at the time the grant was given. However, wikipedia mentions that “In 2017 OpenAI spent $7.9 million, or a quarter of its functional expenses, on cloud computing alone.” This certainly makes it seem that the grant provided OpenAI with a significant amount of capital, enough to have increased its research output.
Keep in mind, the grant needs to have generated 30 million in EV just to break even. I’m now going to suggest some other uses for the money, but keep in mind these are just rough estimates and I haven’t adjusted for inflation. I’m not claiming these are the best uses of 30 million dollars.
The money could have funded an organisation the size of MIRI for roughly a decade (basing my estimate on MIRI’s 2017 fundraiser, using 2020 numbers gives an estimate of ~4 years).
Imagine the shift in public awareness if there had been an AI safety Superbowl ad for 3-5 years.
Or it could have saved the lives of ~1300 children.
This analysis is obviously much worse if in fact the grant was negative EV.
“This grant was obviously ex ante bad. In fact, it’s so obvious that it was ex ante bad that we should strongly update against everyone involved in making it.”
This is an accurate summary.
“arguing about the impact of grants requires much more thoroughness than you’re using here”
We might not agree on the level of effort required for a quick take. I do not currently have the time available to expand this into a full write up on the EA forum but am still interested in discussing this with the community.
“you’re making a provocative claim but not really spelling out why you believe the premises.”
I think this is a fair criticism and something I hope I can improve on.
I feel frustrated that your initial comment (which is now the top reply) implies I either hadn’t read the 1700 word grant justification that is at the core of my argument, or was intentionally misrepresenting it to make my point. This seems to be an extremely uncharitable interpretation of my initial post.
Your reply has been quite meta, which makes it difficult to convince you on specific points.
Your argument on betting markets has updated me slightly towards your position, but I am not particularly convinced. My understanding is that Open Phil and OpenAI had a close relationship, and hence Open Phil had substantially more information to work with than the average manifold punter.