Disclaimer: This blog post focuses on a new piece of research from Rethink Priorities. I was not involved with the funding or execution of this research, and therefore write this piece merely as a consumer. However, I am the Executive Director of Giving Green and a board member of Rethink Priorities, and acknowledge that these affiliations may bias my...
I am writing up two charity ideas I’ve wanted to investigate, but haven’t been able to, in the hopes someone will investigate them further. If you end up investigating either, I'd be most interested to see what conclusions you come to!
Vulture preservation as a global health intervention
Since the mid 1990's the vulture population in India has been rapidly declining. The reason is due to a few chemicals which are fed to livestock, which is highly poisonous to vultures.
...
Michael Nielsen has a beautiful new essay on moral imagination: the ability humans have to 'develop and transmit new notions of good action, indeed, even new kinds of good'.
As examples, he gives:
* Hammurabi's creation of a code of laws (in 1754 BCE) and his justification of his rule not in terms of divine or hereditary right, but by the delivery of justice to his citizens.
* St Gregory of Nyssa's...
Yes, fully agree. The only reason current models are (relatively) safe is because they are weaker than us. Open AI brag that:
29%!? That's really not going to cut it when the models are able to overpower us (or produce output that does). All the doom will flow through the tiniest cracks of imperfect alignment. In the limit of superintelligent AI, we need 100% perfect, 0 failure modes, alignment. And the burden should totally be on the company releasing the model that has the potential to scale to superintelligence (and endangering all 8 billion people on the planet), to prove that.
If there are small remaining risks, then releasing the model needs to be a globally democratic decision (e.g. by unanimous vote at the UN).