[This post was written quickly and presents the idea in broad strokes. I hope it prompts more nuanced and detailed discussions in the future.]
In recent years, many in the Effective Altruism community have shifted to working on AI risks, reflecting the growing consensus that AI will profoundly shape our future.
In response to this significant shift, there have been efforts to preserve a "principles-first EA" approach, or to give special thought into how to support non-AI causes. This has often led to discussions being framed around "AI Safety vs. everything else". And it feels like the community is somewhat divided along the following lines:
- Those working on AI Safety, because they believe that transformative AI is coming.
- Those focusing on other causes, implicitly acting as if transformative AI is not coming.[1]
Instead of framing priorities this way, I believe it would be valuable for more people to adopt a mindset that assumes transformative AI is likely coming and asks: What should we work on in light of that?
If we accept that AI is likely to reshape the world over the next 10–15 years, this realisation will have major implications for all cause areas. But just to start, we should strongly ask ourselves: "Are current GHW & animal welfare projects robust to a future in which AI transforms economies, governance, and global systems?" If they aren't, they are unlikely to be the best use of resources.
Importantly, this isn't an argument that everyone should work on AI Safety. It's an argument that all cause areas need to integrate the implications of transformative AI into their theory of change and strategic frameworks. To ignore these changes is to risk misallocating resources and pursuing projects that won't stand the test of time.
- ^
Important to note: Many people believe that AI will be transformative, but choose not to work on it due to factors such as (perceived) lack of personal fit or opportunity, personal circumstances, or other practical considerations.
Thanks for the comment! I might be missing something, but GPT-type chatbots are based on large language models, which play a key role in scaling toward AGI. I do think that extrapolating progress from them is valuable but also agree that tying discussions about future AI systems too closely to current models’ capabilities can be misleading.
That said, my post intentionally assumes a more limited claim: that AI will transform the world in significant ways relatively soon. This assumption seems both more likely and increasingly foreseeable. In contrast, assumptions about a world ‘incredibly radically’ transformed by superintelligence are less likely and less foreseeable. There have been lots of arguments around why you should work on AI Safety, and I agree with many of them. I’m mainly trying to reach the EAs who buy into the limited claim but currently act as if they don’t.
Regarding the example: It would likely be a mistake to focus only on current AI capabilities for education. However, it could be important to seriously evaluate scenarios like, ‘AI teachers better than every human teacher soon’.