= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Thomas comments on Risks from AI and Charitable Giving - 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 (126)
If I understand you correctly, you are saying this: "Don't bother with this superintelligence risk, for it is incredibly tiny."
A bold statement. Too bold for a potentially disastrous chain of events, which you assure us it's just impossible.
No, not really. I am not saying that because GiveWell says that the Against Malaria Foundation is the number #1 charity, treating children for parasite infections in sub-Saharan Africa should be ignored.
This is a delicate problem and if it was up to me to allocate the resources of the world then existential risk researchers, including SIAI, would receive their share of funding. But if I could only choose one cause, either SIAI or something else, then I wouldn't choose SIAI.
My opinion on the topic is highly volatile though. There have been moments when I thought that SIAI is best choice when it comes to charitable giving. There has been a time when I was completely sure that a technological singularity will happen soon. Maybe I will change my mind again. I suggest everyone to research the topic themselves.
This I agree. I won't buy the whole package from the SIAI, I won't even donate them under the current conditions.
But I see some of their points as extremely important and I am happy that they exist and do what they do.