Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’m missing a good keyboard right now so can’t respond in detail, but I’ll make a few remarks.
I’m well aware that SIAI has done some good things. The reason why I’ve focusing on the apparent shortcomings of SIAI is to encourage SIAI to improve its practices. I do believe that at the margin the issue worthy of greatest consideration is transparency and accountability and I believe that this justifies giving to VillageReach over SIAI.
But I’m definitely open to donating to and advocating that others donate to SIAI and FHI in the future provided that such organizations clear certain standards for transparency and accountability and provide a clear and compelling case for room for more funding.
Again, I would encourage you (and others) who are interested in existential risk to write to the GiveWell staff requesting that GiveWell evaluate existential risk organizations including SIAI and FHI. I would like to see GiveWell do such work soon.
I do believe that at the margin the issue worthy of greatest consideration is transparency and accountability and I believe that this justifies giving to VillageReach over SIAI.
What about everything else that isn’t the margin? What is your expected value of SIAI’s public accomplishments, to date, in human lives saved? What is that figure for VillageReach? Use pessimistic figures for SIAI and optimistic ones for VillageReach if you must, but come up with numbers and then multiply them. Your arguments are not consistent with expected utility maximization.
You would be much better off if you were directly offering SIAI financial incentives to improve the expected value of its work. Donating to VillageReach is not the optimal use of money for maximizing what you value.
You would be much better off if you were directly offering SIAI financial incentives to improve the expected value of its work. Donating to VillageReach is not the optimal use of money for maximizing what you value.
You may well be right about this, I’ll have to think some more about this :-). Thanks for raising this issue.
You’ve provided reasons for why you are skeptical of the ability of SIAI to reduce existential risk. It’s clear you’ve dedicated a good amount of effort to your investigation.
Why are you content to leave the burden of investigating FHI’s abilities to GiveWell, rather than investigate yourself, as you have with SIAI?
Why are you content to leave the burden of investigating FHI’s abilities to GiveWell, rather than investigate yourself, as you have with SIAI?
The reason that I have not investigated FHI is simply because I have not gotten around to doing so. I do plan to change this soon. I investigated SIAI first because I came into contact with SIAI before I came into contact with FHI.
My initial reaction to FHI is that it looks highly credible to me, but that I doubt that it has room for more funding. However, I look forward to looking more closely into this matter in the hopes of finding a good opportunity for donors to lower existential risk.
You should definitely do research to confirm this on your own, but the last I heard (somewhat informally through the grapevine) was that FHI does indeed have room for more funding, for example, in the form of funding for an additional researcher or post-doc to join their team. You can than evaluate whether an additional academic trying to research and publish in these areas would be useful, but given how small the field currently is, my impression would be that an additional such academic would probably be helpful.
I’m well aware that SIAI has done some good tings. The reason why I’ve focusing on the apparent shortcomings of SIAI is to encourage SIAI to improve its practices. I do believe that at the margin the issue worthy of greatest consideration is transparency and accountability
I would very much like to see what positive observations you have made during your research into the SIAI. I know that you believe there is plenty of potential—there would be no reason to campaign for improvements if you didn’t see the chance that it would make a difference. That’d be a pointless or counter-productive for your interests given that it certainly doesn’t win you any high status friends!
How about you write a post on a different issue regarding SIAI or FAI in general using the same standard of eloquence that you have displayed?
wedrifid—Thanks for your kind remarks. As I said in my top level post, I’ll be taking a long break from LW. As a brief answer to your question:
(a) I think that Eliezer has inspired people (including myself) to think more about existential risk and that this will lower existential risk. I thank Eliezer for this.
(b) I think that Less Wrong has provided a useful venue for smart people (of a certain kind) to network and find friends and that this too will lower existential risk.
(c) Most of what I know about the good things that SIAI has done on an institutional level are from Carl Shulman. You might like to ask him for more information.
Hi Airedale,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’m missing a good keyboard right now so can’t respond in detail, but I’ll make a few remarks.
I’m well aware that SIAI has done some good things. The reason why I’ve focusing on the apparent shortcomings of SIAI is to encourage SIAI to improve its practices. I do believe that at the margin the issue worthy of greatest consideration is transparency and accountability and I believe that this justifies giving to VillageReach over SIAI.
But I’m definitely open to donating to and advocating that others donate to SIAI and FHI in the future provided that such organizations clear certain standards for transparency and accountability and provide a clear and compelling case for room for more funding.
Again, I would encourage you (and others) who are interested in existential risk to write to the GiveWell staff requesting that GiveWell evaluate existential risk organizations including SIAI and FHI. I would like to see GiveWell do such work soon.
What about everything else that isn’t the margin? What is your expected value of SIAI’s public accomplishments, to date, in human lives saved? What is that figure for VillageReach? Use pessimistic figures for SIAI and optimistic ones for VillageReach if you must, but come up with numbers and then multiply them. Your arguments are not consistent with expected utility maximization.
You would be much better off if you were directly offering SIAI financial incentives to improve the expected value of its work. Donating to VillageReach is not the optimal use of money for maximizing what you value.
You may well be right about this, I’ll have to think some more about this :-). Thanks for raising this issue.
You’ve provided reasons for why you are skeptical of the ability of SIAI to reduce existential risk. It’s clear you’ve dedicated a good amount of effort to your investigation.
Why are you content to leave the burden of investigating FHI’s abilities to GiveWell, rather than investigate yourself, as you have with SIAI?
The reason that I have not investigated FHI is simply because I have not gotten around to doing so. I do plan to change this soon. I investigated SIAI first because I came into contact with SIAI before I came into contact with FHI.
My initial reaction to FHI is that it looks highly credible to me, but that I doubt that it has room for more funding. However, I look forward to looking more closely into this matter in the hopes of finding a good opportunity for donors to lower existential risk.
You should definitely do research to confirm this on your own, but the last I heard (somewhat informally through the grapevine) was that FHI does indeed have room for more funding, for example, in the form of funding for an additional researcher or post-doc to join their team. You can than evaluate whether an additional academic trying to research and publish in these areas would be useful, but given how small the field currently is, my impression would be that an additional such academic would probably be helpful.
Thanks for the info.
I would very much like to see what positive observations you have made during your research into the SIAI. I know that you believe there is plenty of potential—there would be no reason to campaign for improvements if you didn’t see the chance that it would make a difference. That’d be a pointless or counter-productive for your interests given that it certainly doesn’t win you any high status friends!
How about you write a post on a different issue regarding SIAI or FAI in general using the same standard of eloquence that you have displayed?
wedrifid—Thanks for your kind remarks. As I said in my top level post, I’ll be taking a long break from LW. As a brief answer to your question:
(a) I think that Eliezer has inspired people (including myself) to think more about existential risk and that this will lower existential risk. I thank Eliezer for this.
(b) I think that Less Wrong has provided a useful venue for smart people (of a certain kind) to network and find friends and that this too will lower existential risk.
(c) Most of what I know about the good things that SIAI has done on an institutional level are from Carl Shulman. You might like to ask him for more information.