= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Plasmon comments on Tallinn-Evans $125,000 Singularity Challenge - 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 (369)
I understood that this was considered pointless hereabouts: that the way to effective charitable donation is to pick the most effective charity and donate your entire charity budget to it. Thus, the only appropriate donations to SIAI would be nothing or everything.
Or have I missed something in the chain of logic?
(This is, of course, from the viewpoint of the donor rather than that of the charity.)
Edit: Could the downvoter please explain? I am not at all personally convinced by that Slate story, but it really is quite popular hereabouts.
My donations are as effective as possible, I have never before donated anything to any organisation (except indirectly, via tax money).
I am too cautious to risk "black-swan events". I am probably overly cautious.
It could well be argued that donating more would be more cautious, depending on the probability of both black-swan events and UFAI, and the effectiveness of SIAI, but I'm sure there are plenty of threads about that already.