= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Larks comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (613)
If they/we didn't think SIAI was the most efficient utility generator and didn't dispand & work for Givewell or whatever, they'd be guilty of failing to act as utility maximisers.
The belief that SIAI is the best utility generator may be incorrect, but you can't criticise someone from SIAI for making it beyond criticising them for being at SIAI, a criticism that no-one seems to make.
Technically not true.SIAI could actually be the optimal way for them specifically to generate utility while at the same time being not the optimal place for people to donate. For example, they could use their efforts to divert charitable donations from even worse sources to themselves and then pass it on to Givewell.
I think that would be illegal, though I'm not as familiar with US rules with regard to this as UK ones. More importantly, that argument seems to rely on an unfairly expansive interpritation of what it is to work for SIAI: diverting money away from SIAI doesn't count.
See my response to Wei_Dai's comment.