836Joined Oct 2017


My attempt at a reasonable AI/semis portfolio:

MSFT - 10%
INTEL - 10%

Nvidia - 15%
SMSN - 15%
Goog - 15%
ASML - 15%

TSMC - 20%

Interested if anyone thinks I got this hugely wrong.

Bottom line is actually 'CEA is four times as selective'. This was pointed out elsewhere but its a big difference. 

I find the following simple argument disturbing:

P1 - Currently, and historically, low power being (animals, children, old dying people) are treated very cruelly if treating them cruelly benefits the powerful even in minor ways. Weak benefits for the powerful empirically justify cruelty at scale.
P2 - There is no good reason to be sure the powerful wont have even minor reasons to be cruel to the powerless (ex: suffering sub-routines, human CEV might include spreading earth like life widely or respect for tradition)
P3 - Inequality between agents is likely to become much more extreme as AI develops
P4 - The scale of potenital suffering will increase by many orders of magnitude

C1 - We are fucked?

Personal Note - There is also no reason to assume me or my loved ones will remain relatively powerful beings

C2 - Im really fucked!

In most cases where I am actually familiar with the facts CEA has behaved very poorly. They have both been way too harsh on good actors and failed to take sufficient action against bad actors (ex Kathy Forth). They did handle some very obvious cases reasonably though (Diego). I don't claim I would do a way better job but I don't trust CEA to make these judgments.

There are multiple examples of EA orgs behaving badly I can't really discuss in public. The community really does not ask for much 'openness'.

The story is more complicated but I can't really get into it in public. Since you work at Rethink you can maybe get the story from Peter.  I've maybe suggested too simplistic a narrative before. But you should chat Peter or Marcus about what happened with Rethink and EA funding. 

"Few people know that we tried to start something pretty similar to Rethink Priorities in 2016 (our actual founding was in 2018). We (Marcus and me, the RP co-founders, plus some others) did some initial work but failed to get sustained funding and traction so we gave up for >1 year before trying again. Given that RP -2018 seems to have turned out to be quite successful, I think RP-2016 could be an example of a failed project?"

Seems somewhat misleading to leave this out.

DXE Bay is not very decentralized. It's run by the five people in 'Core Leadership'. The leadership is elected democratically. Though there is a bit on complexity since Wayne is influential but not formally part of the leadership. 

Leadership being replaced over time is not something to lament. I would strongly prefer more uhhhh 'churn' in EA's leadership. I endorse the current leadership quite a bit and strongly prefer that several previous 'Core' members lost their elections.

note: I haven't been very involved in DXE since I left California. Its really quite concentrated in the Bay.

If I had to guess I would predict Luke is more careful than various other EA leaders (mostly cause of Luke's ties to Eliezer). But you can look at the observed behavior of OpenPhil/80K/etc and I dont think they are behaving as carefully as I would endorse with respect to the most dangerous possible topic (besides maybe gain of function research which Ea would not fund). It doesn't make sense to write leadership a blank check. But it also doesn't make sense to worry about the 'unilateralists curse' when deciding if you should buy your friend a laptop!

Load More