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
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe