= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Reply to Holden on The Singularity Institute - 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 (213)
I agree with you on all of those points.
Further, it seems to me that Holden is implicitly comparing SI to other charitable-giving opportunities when he provides GW's evaluation of SI, rather than comparing SI to other x-risk-reduction opportunities.
I tentatively infer, from the fact that you consider responding to such a comparison something you should leave to others but you're participating in a discussion of how SI ought to respond to Holden, that you don't agree that Holden is engaging in such a comparison.
If you're right, then I don't know what Holden is doing, and I probably don't have a clue how Luke ought to reply to Holden.
Holden is comparing SI to other giving opportunities, not just to giving opportunities that may reduce x-risk. That's not a part of the discussion Eliezer feels he should contribute to, though. I tried to address it in the first two sections of my post above, and then in part 3 I talked about why both FHI and SI contribute unique and important value to the x-risk reduction front.
In other words: I tried to explain that for many people, x-risk is Super Duper Important, and so for those people, what matters is which charities among those reducing x-risk they should support. And then I went on to talk about SI's value for x-risk reduction in particular.
Much of the debate over x-risk as a giving opportunity in general has to do with Holden's earlier posts about expected value estimates, and SI's post on that subject (written by Steven Kaas) is still under development.