= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Brillyant comments on Open thread, Oct. 03 - Oct. 09, 2016 - 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 (175)
I think that most people already heard about the fact that AI could be catastrophic risk, and they already has their opinion about it. May be their opinions are wrong.
What is the goal of such elevator pitch?
I think that the message should be following: While it is known that AI could be catastrophic, the only organisation (MIRI) which is doing most serios research on its prevention is underfunded. Providing finding to them could dramatically change probability of human survival, and we could estimate that 1 USD donated to them will save 10 human lives.
Is any of this true? "Most serious"? "Dramatically change probability of human survival"? 10 lives per $1?
I just provided an example of possible pitch, and I think that some people in Miri thinks in this way. I wanted to show that the pitch must have new information and be actionable.