It says “AI Safety” later in the title. Do you think I should mention it earlier, like “The AI Safety GiveWiki’s Top Picks for the Giving Season of 2023”?
Unsure. It’s probably reasonable to assume around here that it’s all AI safety all the time. “GiveWiki” as the authority for the picker, to me, implied that this was from a broader universe of giving, and this was the AI Safety subset. No biggie, but I’m sad there isn’t more discussion about donations to AI safety research vs more prosaic suffering-reduction in the short term.
“GiveWiki” as the authority for the picker, to me, implied that this was from a broader universe of giving, and this was the AI Safety subset.
Could be… That’s not so wrong either. We rather artificially limited it to AI safety for the moment to have a smaller, more sharply defined target audience. It also had the advantage that we could recruit our evaluators from our own networks. But ideally I’d like to find owners for other cause areas too and then widen the focus of GiveWiki accordingly. The other cause area where I have a relevant network is animal rights, but we already have ACE there, so GiveWiki wouldn’t add so much on the margin. One person is interested in potentially either finding someone or themselves taken responsibility for an global coordination/peace-building branch, but they probably won’t have the time. That would be excellent though!
No biggie, but I’m sad there isn’t more discussion about donations to AI safety research vs more prosaic suffering-reduction in the short term.
Indeed! Rethink Priorities has made some progress on that. I need to dig into the specifics more to see whether I need to update on it. The particular parameters that they discuss in the article have not been so relevant to my reasoning on these parameters, but it’s well possible that animal rights wins out even more clearly on the basis of the parameters that I’ve been using.
It’s worth specifying “AI GiveWiki” in the title. This seems to be recommendations GIVEN a decision that AI safety is the target.
It says “AI Safety” later in the title. Do you think I should mention it earlier, like “The AI Safety GiveWiki’s Top Picks for the Giving Season of 2023”?
Unsure. It’s probably reasonable to assume around here that it’s all AI safety all the time. “GiveWiki” as the authority for the picker, to me, implied that this was from a broader universe of giving, and this was the AI Safety subset. No biggie, but I’m sad there isn’t more discussion about donations to AI safety research vs more prosaic suffering-reduction in the short term.
Could be… That’s not so wrong either. We rather artificially limited it to AI safety for the moment to have a smaller, more sharply defined target audience. It also had the advantage that we could recruit our evaluators from our own networks. But ideally I’d like to find owners for other cause areas too and then widen the focus of GiveWiki accordingly. The other cause area where I have a relevant network is animal rights, but we already have ACE there, so GiveWiki wouldn’t add so much on the margin. One person is interested in potentially either finding someone or themselves taken responsibility for an global coordination/peace-building branch, but they probably won’t have the time. That would be excellent though!
Indeed! Rethink Priorities has made some progress on that. I need to dig into the specifics more to see whether I need to update on it. The particular parameters that they discuss in the article have not been so relevant to my reasoning on these parameters, but it’s well possible that animal rights wins out even more clearly on the basis of the parameters that I’ve been using.