[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.
Hi Tobias.
I think donating to the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP) would still have super high cost-effectiveness even if the world was certain to end in 10 years. I estimate it has been 64.3 k times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities (ignoring their effects on animals) for 10 years of acceleration of the adoption of electrical stunning, as used by Open Philanthropy (OP). If the acceleration followed a normal distribution, SWP's cost-effectiveness would only become 50 % as high if the world was certain to end in 10 years. I think this would still be orders of magnitude more cost-effective than the best interventions in global health and development and AI safety.
There is also the question of whether the world will actually be radically reshaped. I am happy to bet 10 k$ against short timelines for that.