Comments
Hi Mati, I'm discussing with people right now about how to make bountied rationality as an inducement prize platform for public goods. We also have a discord server for it. Would you be willing to connect on FB?
Hi Mati, I'm discussing with people right now about how to make bountied rationality as an inducement prize platform for public goods. We also have a discord server for it. Would you be willing to connect on FB?
I'd love that, yes! https://www.facebook.com/mati.roy.09
Hmm, good question.
Recommending people to apply:
Forecasting related:
Content related:
An inducement prize contest (IPC) is a competition that awards a cash prize for the accomplishment of a feat, usually of engineering. IPCs are typically designed to extend the limits of human ability. Some of the most famous IPCs include the Longitude prize (1714–1765), the Orteig Prize (1919–1927) and the prizes from the X Prize Foundation.
IPCs are distinct from recognition prizes, such as the Nobel Prize, in that IPCs have prospectively defined criteria for what feat is to be achieved for winning the prize, while recognition prizes may be based on the beneficial effects of the feat.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inducement_prize_contest
I intend to update this answer as I think of more.
Why is "iterated embryo selection" desirable on EA grounds?
I can see the argument that this let's us improve human intelligence, which eg leads to more technological progress. But it seems unclear whether this is good from an x-risk perspective. And I can see many ways that better control over human genetics can lead to super bad outcomes, eg stable dictatorships.
Also safer technological progress, which is where a significant chunk of the x-risks are coming from. I don't think this would influence the probability of stable dictatorships.