Hide table of contents

LLMs are getting much more capable, and progress is rapid. I use them in my daily work, and there are many tasks where they're usefully some combination of faster and more capable than I am. I don't see signs of these capability increases stopping or slowing down, and if they do continue I expect the impact on society to start accelerating as they exceed what an increasing fraction of humans can do. I think we could see serious changes in the next 2-5 years.

In my professional life, working on pathogen detection I take this pretty seriously. Advances in AI make it easier for adversaries to design and create pathogens, and so it's important to get a comprehensive detection system in place quickly. Similarly, more powerful AIs are likely to speed up our work in some areas (computational detection) more than others (partnerships) and increase the value of historical data, and I think about this in my planning at work.

In other parts of my life, though, I've basically been ignoring that I think this is likely coming. In deciding to get more solar panels and not get a heat pump I looked at historical returns and utility prices. I book dance gigs a year or more out. I save for retirement. I'm raising my kids in what is essentially preparation for the world of the recent past.

From one direction this doesn't make any sense: why wouldn't I plan for the future I see coming? But from another it's more reasonable: most scenarios where AI becomes extremely capable look either very good or very bad. Outside of my work, I think my choices don't have much impact here: if we all become rich, or dead, my having saved, spent, invested, or parented more presciently won't do much. Instead, in my personal life my decisions have the largest effects in worlds where AI ends up being not that big a deal, perhaps only as transformative as the internet has been.

Still, there are probably areas in our personal lives where it's worth doing something differently? For example:

  • Think hard about career choice: if our kids were a bit older I'd want to be able to give good advice here. How is AI likely to impact the fields they're most interested in? How quickly might this go? What regulatory barriers are there? How might the portions they especially enjoy change as a fraction of the overall work?

  • Maybe either hold off on having kids or have them earlier than otherwise. If we were trying to decide whether to have (another) kid I'd want to think about how much of wanting to have a kid was due to very long term effects (seeing them grow into adulthood, increasing the chance grandchildren, pride in their accomplishments), how I'd feel if children conceived a few years from now had some (embryo selection) or a lot of (genome editing) advantages, how financial constraints might change, what if I never got to be a parent, etc.

  • Postponing medical treatment that trades short-term discomfort for long-term improvement: I'm a bit more willing to tolerate and work around the issues with my wrists and other joints than I would be in a world where I thought medicine was likely to stay on its recent trajectory.

  • Investing money in ways that anticipate this change: I'm generally a pretty strong efficient markets proponent, but I think it's likely that markets are under-responding here outside of the most direct ways (NVDA) to invest in the boom. But I haven't actually done anything here: figuring out which companies I expect to be winners and losers in ways that are not yet priced in is difficult.

  • Avoiding investing money in ways that lock it up even if the ROI is good: I think it's plausible that our installing solar was a mistake and keeping the money invested to retain option value would have been better. I might prefer renting to owning if we didn't already own.

What are other places where people should be weighing the potential impact of near-term transformative AI heavily in their decisions today? Are there places where most of us should be doing the same different thing?

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I don't have much confidence in how AI will go, so this is very speculative, but one consideration for personal planning that I think about:

If AI does become as powerful as some hope (and doesn't kill us all), then maybe your personal situation (money, power) at a particular crucial point will be very important. Examples:

  • are you still alive when crucial health advances come that could keep you alive much longer?
  • can you afford those crucial health advances? (for yourself and/or loved ones)
  • are you still alive when technology to "upload" your mind works well, and can you afford it?
  • is there going to be some future grab for resources at a crucial time (before or after uploading...), and will you be in a good position for that?
    • hard for me to speculate about what those resources are, but for a probably-quite-silly example: Maybe we'll auction off whole solar systems?

How you answer these questions could affect whether you live for the next million years, and what that life is like. I see those as reasons to prioritize personal health, money, and power more than you would otherwise.

Note: I'm not actually living my life according to this prescription. If I had to answer why, I think it's partly that I think probably AI progress will stall out before creating such scientific/tech breakthroughs that allow for uploading minds. But even a small chance could be worth optimizing for, so I'm not sure I'm being rational about this.

(This is about personal planning, but sort of parallels some EA considerations, like "value lock-in".)

I see AI as just another tool, much like personal computers or computer programming were in their time. I believe that people will need to learn how to effectively use AI by mastering the art of writing prompts and distinguishing between the various AI tools available.

For example, just recently I used AI to help with negotiating a new car purchase and while it was helpful it could only offer very generic advice and recommendations and was not really able to take into account my personal situation and circumstances and offer individualized help.

Just as learning to code was essential for harnessing the power of computers, developing skills in prompt engineering is becoming increasingly important in our AI-driven world. Understanding the strengths and limitations of different AI systems will be crucial for their effective utilization.

That said, I also recognize that AI has unique characteristics that set it apart from traditional tools. Its ability to learn, adapt, and make decisions autonomously introduces new challenges that we need to consider.

Overall, I think viewing AI as a tool to be learned and mastered is a pragmatic approach. It highlights the importance of education and skill development as we prepare for a future where AI plays a significant role in our lives.

I went to buy a ceiling fan recently. The salesperson said I might not want a particular model because it had a light with only 10,000 hours in it, and they've decommissioned replacements. I told him I wasn't worried 😭

Hi Yanni. If you like, I am open to a bet like the one I did with Greg.

PS. I liked and upvoted your comment.

Hey mate! I use the light for about 4 hours a day. Which means I'll get 6.84 years from it.

In case I wasn't clear, I was suggesting that tech will have progressed far enough in ~ 6.84 years that worrying about a light in a ceiling fan doesn't make sense.

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f