This a submission for the Future Fund worldview prize addressing its two concerns:
1. Loss of control to AI systems
2. Concentration of power (with the help of AI)

Now I understand why we would be genuinely concerned about the possibilities above. Or why we would think that "with the help of advanced AI, we could make enormous progress toward ending global poverty, animal suffering, early death and debilitating disease." Our hopes and our worries are different sides of the same coin and I would suggest that in case of AI, both our hopes and worries might be, for the most part, misplaced. The reasons for that, however, have more to do with our own human nature than with AI itself.

See, the problem lies with us, humans. As things are, we are not fully functional, not living to our potential. Call it enlightenment, or self-actualization, most of us are simply not there, individually. I am being vague here on purpose, because information hazards, let's put it that way. But I would like to be specific at least explaining why some things might be not safe to share.

The reason is that, yes, knowledge is power. And, yes, the truth sets us free. However, with freedom and power comes responsibility. And it might sound like downer, but it's really not because that responsibility is before ourselves, first and foremost. See, we are not robots. Simply being productive is not enough. Simply having food on the table and a roof over our heads, having or basic needs taken care of is not enough. We need happiness just as bad, and if it keeps slipping away, we grow increasingly desperate, often to the point of becoming self-destructive. That is as true for every one of us individually, as it is true for our very troubled civilization.

In such circumstances, empowering ourselves with more knowledge, more AI, more tech would only make us more efficient at destroying ourselves and our planet.

So what makes us happy then? Well, it's not complicated, if a bit tricky. See, when it comes to ensuring our basic needs, we must take care of ourselves first in order to stay productive. It's like with oxygen masks -- you put your own first. That, unfortunately, makes it easy to try and reach happiness the same way -- except that with happiness, the rules are literally the opposite. Our own happiness cannot and will not last unless we ensure it for others -- which, in our interconnected world, means everyone else on  the planet.

That, by the way, is the meaning of Zulu word ubuntu -- "I cannot be happy apart from others."

So that is where the road has to start -- understanding that truth, accepting it, and actually getting serious about it. As in getting creative about actually making it happen. See, the life is only unfair in the sense that it doesn't care how much effort we put, how hard we try. It only cares about the end result -- have we ensured everyone's happiness, or not? And that's why creativity, entrepreneurship, if you want, toward reaching that goal is the key.

Thank you for reading this far.

Announcing the Future Fund's AI Worldview Prize

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Interesting thoughts. But do you think AI will, on balance, help or hurt us in this quest?

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