orthonormal comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - Less Wrong

36 Post author: multifoliaterose 15 August 2010 07:16AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (613)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: orthonormal 15 August 2010 04:01:03PM 1 point [-]

I think you claim too much. If I decided I couldn't follow the relevant arguments, and wanted to trust a group to research the important uncertainties of existential risk, I'd trust FHI. (They could always decide to fund or partner with SIAI themselves if its optimality became clear.)

Comment author: whpearson 15 August 2010 08:32:50PM 5 points [-]

My only worry about funding FHI exclusively is that they are primarily philosophical and academic. I'd worry that the default thing they would do with more money would be to produce more philosophical papers. Rather than say doing/funding biological research or programming, if that was what was needed.

But as the incentive structures for x-risk reduction organisations go, those of an academic philosophy department aren't too bad at this stage.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 15 August 2010 04:04:47PM *  3 points [-]

This seems to work as an argument for much greater marginal worth of ensuring minimal funding, so that there is at least someone who researches the uncertainties professionally (to improve on what people from the street can estimate in their spare time), before we ask about the value of researching the stuff these uncertainties are about. (Of course, being the same organization that directly benefits from a given answer is generally a bad idea, so FHI might work in this case.)

Comment author: timtyler 15 August 2010 04:10:12PM *  0 points [-]