Yeah, I think that’s a pretty fair criticism, but afaict that is the main thing that OpenPhil is still funding in AI safety? E.g. all the RFPs that they’ve been doing, I think they funded Jacob Steinhardt, etc. Though I don’t know much here; I could be wrong.
Wasn’t the relevant part of your argument like, “AI safety research outside of the labs is not that good, so that’s a contributing factor among many to it not being bad to lose the ability to do safety funding for governance work”? If so, I think that “most of OpenPhil’s actual safety funding has gone to building a robust safety research ecosystem outside of the labs” is not a good rejoinder to “isn’t there a large benefit to building a robust safety research ecosystem outside of the labs?”, because the rejoinder is focusing on relative allocations within “(technical) safety research”, and the complaint was about the allocation between “(technical) safety research” vs “other AI x-risk stuff”.
Yeah, I think that’s a pretty fair criticism, but afaict that is the main thing that OpenPhil is still funding in AI safety? E.g. all the RFPs that they’ve been doing, I think they funded Jacob Steinhardt, etc. Though I don’t know much here; I could be wrong.
Wasn’t the relevant part of your argument like, “AI safety research outside of the labs is not that good, so that’s a contributing factor among many to it not being bad to lose the ability to do safety funding for governance work”? If so, I think that “most of OpenPhil’s actual safety funding has gone to building a robust safety research ecosystem outside of the labs” is not a good rejoinder to “isn’t there a large benefit to building a robust safety research ecosystem outside of the labs?”, because the rejoinder is focusing on relative allocations within “(technical) safety research”, and the complaint was about the allocation between “(technical) safety research” vs “other AI x-risk stuff”.