If a charity asks a donor for financial audits, the response is going to be: We don't do paperwork for you. You do paperwork for us. Followed by giving the donation to someone else.

I think the EA community should have an organization full of private investigators and forensic accountants tucked away somewhere, with a broad mandate to look for problems focused on EA-connected places.

But FTX is a for-profit corporation. The fact that they're making donations doesn't give anyone the power to impose accounting standards on them; that capability is only held by government institutions with power of subpoena.

I heard the same claim, from a different source: that SBF did something unethical at Alameda Research prior to founding FTX, that some EAs had left Alameda saying that SBF was unethical and no one should work with him, and that there were privately circulated warnings to this effect. (The person I heard this from hasn't spoken publicly about it yet as far as I know. They are someone with no previous or current involvement with FTX or Alameda Research, who I think is reporting honestly and is well positioned to have heard such things.)

(EDIT: others along the rumor-path via which I heard this have now spoken on this thread, in greater detail than I have; so this comment is a duplicate report and should not be coutned.)

The story of how it got that way is that agree/disagree was originally built as an experiment-with-voting-systems feature, with the key component of that being that different posts can have different voting systems without conflict. (See eg this thread for another voting system we tried.)

The main reason for hesitation (other ForumMagnum developers might not agree) is that I'm not really convinced that 2-axis voting is the right voting system, and expanding it from a posts-have-different-voting-systems context to a whole-site-is-2-axis context limits the options for future experimentation. In particular, there's a big unresolved fundamental issue in how votes conflate positivity with engagement, which I really want to solve some day.

Phil Torres is not currently a deadname. A deadname is a name that someone is no longer using in their public persona, but the name Phil is displayed prominently on their web page. Searching Amazon for Phil Torres finds their books, searching Amazon for Emile Torres does not.

Moreover, it's basically impossible to understand what's going on here without knowing that Phil and Emile are the same person, and asking the original poster to avoid mentioning the name-mapping is asking them to obfuscate.

Erring in the direction of they/them is fine, but I object to pronoun-policing when it's done on another person's behalf, and the pronoun that was used is one that the person is currently advertising as correct in any prominent place (such as at the bottom of this page).

Phil/Émile changed name, but did not change pronouns. A Facebook post I saw indicated that the name change was to avoid confusion with a different Phil Torres, who is an entomologist. While their Twitter profile specifies they/them pronouns, their Facebook profile says he/him (both profiles have the updated name). I think under any reasonable etiquette standard, that means either pronoun is acceptable unless they directly say otherwise.

If your group hasn't done the Petrov Day ritual, this is a good place to start. (There are several variants to choose from, and it's a living tradition, so making your own variant is encouraged, though obviously not required.)

22. If successful, in five years the impact of our project will be... 

Eighty percent of California water utilities will be implementing leading water efficiency programmatic practices to bring down the water consumption of urban areas and we are able to implement these analytics in any area of the world faced with an aridifying climate.

I was under the impression that California's water problems are almost entirely agricultural, meaning that improving urban-area water use in particular won't help because that's not where the water is going. I'm not entirely sure whether that's true--that seems like something a water--analytics organization will want to be able to tell me--but if it is true, it means your success criteria should probably be more focused on irrigation techniques rather than urban consumers. Eg "farms adopt irrigation techniques which lose less to evaporation, and rainfall-adjusted irrigation water consumption per unit of food production falls 20%", or something like that.

If there's an arms race dynamic, it's probably a disaster no matter who wins. Having room to delay for late-stage alignment experiments is the barest minimum requirement in order for humanity to have any chance of survival. So the best case is to not have an arms race at all. The next-best thing is for the organization that wins to be the sort of organization that could stop at the brink for late-stage alignment research, if its leader decided to, and for it to have a stable leader who's sane enough to make that decision. Then maximize the size of the gap to second place, to increase the probability and length of that delay.

Needing it to be possible to stop rules out all of government and academia in the US as the US exists now, since those organizations have their high-level decisions made by distant committees, who typically have strong incentives to maintain whatever superficially looks like the status quo, don't typically have the prerequisites to undersand alignment-related strategy, and don't have the technical expertise to recognize when they're at the brink.

I believe that, of all of the organizations that could plausibly win an AGI arms race, this uniquely identifies DeepMind. I do have some misgivings about DeepMind's strategy, and I don't have full confidence that Demis would recognize when we're at the brink or stop there, but no other organization seems even vaguely plausible.

Load More