Why doesn’t someone like Jaan Tallinn or Peter Thiel donate a lot more to SIAI? I don’t intend this to mean that I think they should or that I know better than them, I just am not sure what their reasoning is. They have both already donated $100k+ each, but they could easily afford much more (well, I know Peter Thiel could. I don’t know exactly how much money Jaan Tallinn actually has). I am just imagining myself in their positions, and I can’t easily imagine myself considering an organization like SIAI to be worth donating $100k to, but not to be worth donating several million to.
Plausible answers I’ve considered:
They’re not actually as rich as I am imagining (I know it’s not the case with Peter Thiel, but Jaan Tallinn’s actions would make sense to me in conjunction with the below possibilities if he had less than about $20 million).
They’re being prudent/waiting to see how well SIAI performs with current donations before making a larger one.
They’re saving money for the future, when it may be more clear where the money can best be invested to assure a positive singularity (this doesn’t make much sense to me—if it ever is that clear, I think there won’t be a big shortage of funding).
Can you think of other hypotheses? (I may try emailing Jaan Tallinn to ask him myself, depending on how others react to this post).
Edited to add: This is not meant as a suggestion that any millionaires ought to do anything. I am legitimately curious about why they are doing what they’re doing—I have no doubt that Peter Thiel and Jaan Tallinn have both already considered this question from more angles than I have, I just want to know what answers they came up with.
It would not be a solicitation for him to donate more (though certainly I’d have to be careful to make it clear that’s not my intention) -- clearly that is something to best leave to SI. It would be a request for clarification of his opinion on these issues. Considering he’s a public figure who has done multiple talks on the subject, I don’t think it’s out of line to ask him for his opinions on how best to allocate funding.
(I may try emailing Jaan Tallinn to ask him myself, depending on how others react to this post).
It seems like that might carry some risk of making him feel like he was being bugged to give more money, or something like that. Maybe it would be better to post a draft of such an email to the site first, just in case?
Tax issues. I can’t find the original thread now, but its been repeatedly stated that it causes legal issues if SI get to much of its funding from a small number of sources.\
It would probably need to be much larger fractions for those sorts of issues to be relevant. In general, the IRS doesn’t mind donations coming from a few large donors when they aren’t too closely connected and there are other donors as well.
But surely there are ways around this? The first idea that comes to mind for me, couldn’t they create an offshoot organization that’s not officially part of SI but still collaborates closely? If not, there has to be some other way around it.
edited to add: Of course there may be good reasons not to do the first idea I suggested above, I’m just saying that someone who wants to spend millions on SIAI-related funding probably wouldn’t have trouble doing so for purely legal reasons.
Billionaire Peter Thiel has poured $1.7 million more into a super PAC supporting presidential candidate Ron Paul, bringing his total contributions to $2.6 million.
I believe that the late 1960s was not only a time when government stopped working well and various aspects of our social contract began to fray, but also when scientific and technological progress began to advance much more slowly. Of course, the computer age, with the internet and web 2.0 developments of the past 15 years, is an exception. Perhaps so is finance, which has seen a lot of innovation over the same period (too much innovation, some would argue).
There has been a tremendous slowdown everywhere else, however. Look at transportation, for example: Literally, we haven’t been moving any faster. The energy shock has broadened to a commodity crisis. In many other areas the present has not lived up to the lofty expectations we had. I think the advanced economies of the world fundamentally grow through technological progress, and as their rate of progress slows, they will have less growth.
A—do not buy a near Singularity. Where “near” means from 1 to 3 decades away.
B—have other, (some would say “maybe not friendly”) plans
C—they have a clandestine contract with the SIAI
I think, people seldom live by what they are preaching.
Had I billion of euros to spend, I would not initialize the Singularity through SIAI. Much less by donating and hoping for a good outcome. No. At the most I would invite somebody from SIAI to join MY team.
Why doesn’t someone like Jaan Tallinn or Peter Thiel donate a lot more to SIAI? I don’t intend this to mean that I think they should or that I know better than them, I just am not sure what their reasoning is. They have both already donated $100k+ each, but they could easily afford much more (well, I know Peter Thiel could. I don’t know exactly how much money Jaan Tallinn actually has). I am just imagining myself in their positions, and I can’t easily imagine myself considering an organization like SIAI to be worth donating $100k to, but not to be worth donating several million to.
Plausible answers I’ve considered:
They’re not actually as rich as I am imagining (I know it’s not the case with Peter Thiel, but Jaan Tallinn’s actions would make sense to me in conjunction with the below possibilities if he had less than about $20 million).
They’re being prudent/waiting to see how well SIAI performs with current donations before making a larger one.
They’re saving money for the future, when it may be more clear where the money can best be invested to assure a positive singularity (this doesn’t make much sense to me—if it ever is that clear, I think there won’t be a big shortage of funding).
Can you think of other hypotheses? (I may try emailing Jaan Tallinn to ask him myself, depending on how others react to this post).
Edited to add: This is not meant as a suggestion that any millionaires ought to do anything. I am legitimately curious about why they are doing what they’re doing—I have no doubt that Peter Thiel and Jaan Tallinn have both already considered this question from more angles than I have, I just want to know what answers they came up with.
The Singularity Institute is in regular contact with its largest donors. Please do not bother them.
It would not be a solicitation for him to donate more (though certainly I’d have to be careful to make it clear that’s not my intention) -- clearly that is something to best leave to SI. It would be a request for clarification of his opinion on these issues. Considering he’s a public figure who has done multiple talks on the subject, I don’t think it’s out of line to ask him for his opinions on how best to allocate funding.
It seems like that might carry some risk of making him feel like he was being bugged to give more money, or something like that. Maybe it would be better to post a draft of such an email to the site first, just in case?
Tax issues. I can’t find the original thread now, but its been repeatedly stated that it causes legal issues if SI get to much of its funding from a small number of sources.\
It would probably need to be much larger fractions for those sorts of issues to be relevant. In general, the IRS doesn’t mind donations coming from a few large donors when they aren’t too closely connected and there are other donors as well.
But surely there are ways around this? The first idea that comes to mind for me, couldn’t they create an offshoot organization that’s not officially part of SI but still collaborates closely? If not, there has to be some other way around it.
edited to add: Of course there may be good reasons not to do the first idea I suggested above, I’m just saying that someone who wants to spend millions on SIAI-related funding probably wouldn’t have trouble doing so for purely legal reasons.
I’ve long wondered what’s Peter Thiel’s master plan (more):
ETA Also see, ‘A Conversation with Peter Thiel’:
Either they—those two and a few more:
A—do not buy a near Singularity. Where “near” means from 1 to 3 decades away.
B—have other, (some would say “maybe not friendly”) plans
C—they have a clandestine contract with the SIAI
I think, people seldom live by what they are preaching.
Had I billion of euros to spend, I would not initialize the Singularity through SIAI. Much less by donating and hoping for a good outcome. No. At the most I would invite somebody from SIAI to join MY team.
I generalize from myself.