CarlShulman comments on Transparency and Accountability - Less Wrong

16 Post author: multifoliaterose 21 August 2010 01:01PM

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

Comments (141)

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

Comment author: Larks 21 August 2010 06:03:55PM *  4 points [-]

SIAI does not presently exhibit high levels of transparency and accountability... For this reason together with the concerns which I express about Existential Risk and Public Relations, I believe that at present GiveWell's top ranked charities VillageReach and StopTB are better choices than SIAI

  • Suppose SIAI were a thousand times less accountable than VillageReach.
  • Suppose this made SIAI a million times less effective than it could be.
  • Suppose that even the most efficient Existential Risk charity could only reduce P(uFAI|AGI) by 10^-9
  • Suppose the odds of an AI singularity or 'foom' were only 10^-9.
  • Suppose a negative singularity only set mankind back by 100 years, rather than paperclipping the entire light cone and destroying all human value together.*

Even then the expected lives saved by SIAI is ~10^28.

  • It's patently obvious that SIAI has an annual income of less than $10^6.

  • Suppose the marginal dollar is worth 10^3 times less than the average dollar.

Even then a yearly donation of $1 saves an expected10^18 lives.

A yearly donation of £1 to VillageReach saves 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 fewer people.

*Sorry Clippy, but multifoliaterose is damaging you here; SIAI is a lot more amenable to negotiation than anyone else.

Comment author: CarlShulman 21 August 2010 07:12:45PM *  4 points [-]

With such low numbers the incidental effects of VillageReach on existential risk (via poverty, population, favoring the efficient philanthropy culture, etc) would dominate. If reasonably favorable, they would mean VillageReach would be a better choice. However, the numbers in the comment are incredibly low.