Charitable giving in the US in 2010: ~$290,890,000,000
SI’s annual budget for 2010: ~$500,000
I am not sure what you are trying to tell me by those numbers. I think that there are a few valid criticisms regarding SI as an organization. It is also not clear that they could usefully spend more than ~$500,000 at this time.
In other words, even if risks from AI was the by far (not just slightly) most important cause, it is not clear that contributing money to SI is better than withholding funds from it it at this point.
If for example they can’t usefully spend more money at this point, and there is nothing medium probable that you yourself can do against AI risk right now, then you should move on to the next most important cause that needs funding and support it instead.
Charitable giving in the US in 2010: ~$290,890,000,000
SI’s annual budget for 2010: ~$500,000
US Peace Corps volunteers in 2010 (3 years of service in a foreign country for sustenance wages): ~8,655
SI volunteers in 2010 (work from home or California hot spots): like 5?
I am not sure what you are trying to tell me by those numbers. I think that there are a few valid criticisms regarding SI as an organization. It is also not clear that they could usefully spend more than ~$500,000 at this time.
In other words, even if risks from AI was the by far (not just slightly) most important cause, it is not clear that contributing money to SI is better than withholding funds from it it at this point.
If for example they can’t usefully spend more money at this point, and there is nothing medium probable that you yourself can do against AI risk right now, then you should move on to the next most important cause that needs funding and support it instead.
You think SI is “probably the top charity right now”.
SI is smaller than the rounding error in US charitable giving.
You think they might have more than enough money
Those don’t add up.
I think it’s funny.
I think you misread “top charity” as “biggest charity” instead of “most important charity”.
No, I didn’t.