If you take a project founder's evaluation of their own project as objective truth, I have a project for you to fund.
I don't, but it is evidence that people disagree with the SIAI and think that there are more effective ways towards a positive Singularity. Don't forget that he once worked for the SIAI. If Michael Vassar was to leave the SIAI and start his own project, wouldn't that be evidence about the SIAI?
As for the up/downvotes, downvote all you like, but if I were you I would check my priors regarding the thought the average LessWronger puts into their comments and voting behaviour.
I had people going through my comments downvoting over 40 in a matter of minutes. I have seen enough irrational and motivated voting behavior to not trust it anymore, especially when it comes to anything about the community itself.
If Michael Vassar was to leave the SIAI and start his own project, wouldn't that be evidence about the SIAI?
Yes, and in Michael's case it would be evidence against the value of the SIAI...
Artificial general intelligence researcher Ben Goertzel answered my question on charitable giving and gave his permission to publish it here. I think the opinion of highly educated experts who have read most of the available material is important to estimate the public and academic perception of risks from AI and the effectiveness with which the risks are communicated by LessWrong and the SIAI.
Alexander Kruel asked:
Ben Goertzel replied:
What can one learn from this?
I'm planning to contact and ask various experts, who are aware of risks from AI, the same question.