With Sam Altman (CEO of YCombinator) talking so much about AI safety and risk over the last 2-3 months, I was so sure that he was working out a deal to fund MIRI. I wonder why they decided to create their own non-profit instead.

Although on second thought, they're aiming for different goals. While MIRI is focused on safety once strong AI occurs, OpenAI is trying to actually speed up the research of strong AI.

That would be closer to Nirvana fallacy, applied to activism. "People do something good. You criticize them for not doing something better instead." This argument happens all the time. See also The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics.

There is a standard solution S0 that almost everyone chooses. Someone chooses a better solution S1. They get attacked for not choosing even better solution S2.

The harmful part is that choosing S1 over S2 is socially punished, while choosing S0 over both S1 and S2 flies under the radar. If the reason for choosing S1 over S2 was that the solution S2 was too complicated or too expensive, we effectively teach people to choose S0 over S1 to avoid the punishment in the future.

(Specifically: S2 = reporting on Lebanon and Paris attacks appropriately; S1 = focusing on Paris; S0 = ignoring both.)

This seems related:

there are many ways to try and signal wisdom. But trying to signal wisdom by refusing to make guesses - refusing to sum up evidence - refusing to pass judgment - refusing to take sides - staying above the fray and looking down with a lofty and condescending gaze - which is to say, signaling wisdom by saying and doing nothing - well, that I find particularly pretentious.

... part of it also has to do with signaling a superior vantage point. After all - what would the other adults think of a principal who actually seemed to be taking sides in a fight between mere children? Why, it would lower his status to a mere participant in the fray!

Similarly with the revered elder - who might be a CEO, a prestigious academic, or a founder of a mailing list - whose reputation for fairness depends on their refusal to pass judgment themselves, when others are choosing sides. Sides appeal to them for support, but almost always in vain; for the Wise are revered judges on the condition that they almost never actually judge - then they would just be another disputant in the fray, no better than any other mere arguer.

... On this point I'd advise remembering that neutrality is a definite judgment. It is not staying above anything. It is putting forth the definite and particular position that the balance of evidence in a particular case licenses only one summation, which happens to be neutral. This, too, can be wrong; propounding neutrality is just as attackable as propounding any particular side.

There's a difference between:

• Passing neutral judgment;
• Declining to invest marginal resources;
• Pretending that either of the above is a mark of deep wisdom, maturity, and a superior vantage point; with the corresponding implication that the original sides occupy lower vantage points that are not importantly different from up there.

-- Pretending to be Wise

Is there a good word for https://xkcd.com/774/? The closest word I can think of is "countersignaling", but it doesn't precisely describe it. I've noticed this sort of behavior a lot on Facebook recently, with the Paris terrorist attacks.

Whenever the conjunction fallacy is brought up, it always irks me, because it doesn't seem like a real fallacy. In the example given by Rationality A to Z, "[...] found that experimental subjects consdiered it less likely that a strong tennis player would lose the first set than he would lose the first set but win the match."

There's two valid interpretations of this statement here:

1) The fallacious interpretation: P(Lose First Set) < P(Lose First Set and Win Match)

2) P(Lose First Set) < P(Win Match | Lose First Set), which is a valid and not necessarily fallacious reasoning, given the context that the tennis player is considered strong. Another possible phrasing of "he would lose the first set but win the match" is "given that he lost his first set, what's the chance of him winning the match?"

Has this been addressed before?

I haven't really looked into it, but there was an odd message that he left in his IAMA in regards to Girardian philosophy: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2g4g95/peter_thiel_technology_entrepreneur_and_investor/ckfn9rj?context=3 . Would love for anyone who knows more to jump in.

"It seems pretty egocentric while we still have malaria and TB for rich people to fund things so they can live longer. It would be nice to live longer though I admit."

Ok. That's a little more worrisome. So how much of that situation is itself caused by lack of funding and the currently small nature of the organization?

2-3 years seems like a reasonable time span to not have published if one is trying to measure some sort of long-term effect.

On CFAR's front page:

In the process, we’re breaking new ground in studying the long-term effects of rationality training on life outcomes using randomized controlled trials.

Despite CFAR's 2-3 year existence (probably longer informally, as well) they have yet to publish a single paper on these "randomized controlled trials". I would advise not donating until they make good on their claims.

edit: I've also made some notes on CFAR and their use of science as an applause light in previous comments.