Yudkowsky's message is "If anyone builds superintelligence, everyone dies." Zvi's version is "If anyone builds superintelligence under anything like current conditions, everyone probably dies."

Yudkowsky contrasts those framings with common "EA framings" like "It seems hard to predict whether superintelligence will kill everyone or not, but there's a worryingly high chance it will, and Earth isn't prepared," and seems to think the latter framing is substantially driven by concerns about what can be said "in polite company."

Obviously I can't speak for all of EA, or all of Open Phil, and this post is my personal view rather than an institutional one since no single institutional view exists, but for the record, my inside view since 2010 has been "If anyone builds superintelligence under anything close to current conditions, probably everyone dies (or is severely disempowered)," and I think the difference between me and Yudkowsky has less to do with social effects on our speech and more to do with differing epistemic practices, i.e. about how confident one can reasonably be about the effects of poorly understood future technologies emerging in future, poorly understood circumstances. (My all-things-considered view, which includes various reference classes and partial deference to many others who think about the topic, is more agnostic and hasn't consistently been above the "probably" line.)

Moreover, I think those who believe some version of "If anyone builds superintelligence, everyone dies" should be encouraged to make their arguments loudly and repeatedly; the greatest barrier to actually-risk-mitigating action right now is the lack of political will.

That said, I think people should keep in mind that:

• Public argumentation can only get us so far when the evidence for the risks and their mitigations is this unclear, when AI has automated so little of the economy, when AI failures have led to so few deaths, etc.
• Most concrete progress on worst-case AI risks — e.g. arguably the AISIs network, the draft GPAI code of practice for the EU AI Act, company RSPs, the chip and SME export controls, or some lines of technical safety work — comes from dozens of people toiling away mostly behind-the-scenes for years, not from splashy public communications (though many of the people involved were influenced by AI risk writings years before). Public argumentation is a small portion of the needed work to make concrete progress. It may be necessary, but it’s far from sufficient.

I'd rather not spend more time engaging here, but see e.g. this.

If you know people who could do good work in the space, please point them to our RFP! As for being anti-helpful in some cases, I'm guessing that was cases where we thought the opportunity wasn't a great opportunity despite it being right-of-center (which is a point in favor, in my opinion), but I'm not sure.

Replying to just a few points…

I agree about tabooing "OP is funding…"; my team is undergoing that transition now, leading to some inconsistencies in our own usage, let alone that of others.

Re: "large negative incentive for founders and organizations who are considering working more with the political right." I'll note that we've consistently been able to help such work find funding, because (as noted here), the bottleneck is available right-of-center opportunities rather than available funding. Plus, GV can and does directly fund lots of work that "engages with the right" (your phrasing), e.g. Horizon fellows and many other GV grantees regularly engage with Republicans, and seem likely to do even more of that on the margin given the incoming GOP trifecta.

Re: "nothing has changed in the last year." No, a lot has changed, but my quick-take post wasn't about "what has changed," it was about "correcting some misconceptions I'm encountering."

Re: "De-facto GV was and is likely to continue to be 95%+ of the giving that OP is influencing." This isn't true, including specifically for my team ("AI governance and policy").

I also don't think this was ever true: "One was also able to roughly assume that if OP decides to not recommend a grant to GV, that most OP staff do not think that grant would be more cost-effective than other grants referred to GV." There's plenty of internal disagreement even among the AI-focused staff about which grants are above our bar for recommending, and funding recommendation decisions have never been made by majority vote.

Good Ventures did indicate to us some time ago that they don't think they're the right funder for some kinds of right-of-center AI policy advocacy, though (a) the boundaries are somewhat fuzzy and pretty far from the linked comment's claim about an aversion to opportunities that are "even slightly right of center in any policy work," (b) I think the boundaries might shift in the future, and (c) as I said above, OP regularly recommends right-of-center policy opportunities to other funders.

Also, I don't actually think this should affect people's actions much because: my team has been looking for right-of-center policy opportunities for years (and is continuing to do so), and the bottleneck is "available opportunities that look high-impact from an AI GCR perspective," not "available funding." If you want to start or expand a right-of-center policy group aimed at AI GCR mitigation, you should do it and apply here! I can't guarantee we'll think it's promising enough to recommend to the funders we advise, but there are millions (maybe tens of millions) available for this kind of work; we've simply found only a few opportunities that seem above-our-bar for expected impact on AI GCR, despite years of searching.

Recently, I've encountered an increasing number of misconceptions, in rationalist and effective altruist spaces, about what Open Philanthropy's Global Catastrophic Risks (GCR) team does or doesn't fund and why, especially re: our AI-related grantmaking. So, I'd like to briefly clarify a few things:

• Open Philanthropy (OP) and our largest funding partner Good Ventures (GV) can't be or do everything related to GCRs from AI and biohazards: we have limited funding, staff, and knowledge, and many important risk-reducing activities are impossible for us to do, or don't play to our comparative advantages.
  • Like most funders, we decline to fund the vast majority of opportunities we come across, for a wide variety of reasons. The fact that we declined to fund someone says nothing about why we declined to fund them, and most guesses I've seen or heard about why we didn't fund something are wrong. (Similarly, us choosing to fund someone doesn't mean we endorse everything about them or their work/plans.)
  • Very often, when we decline to do or fund something, it's not because we don't think it's good or important, but because we aren't the right team or organization to do or fund it, or we're prioritizing other things that quarter.
  • As such, we spend a lot of time working to help create or assist other philanthropies and organizations who work on these issues and are better fits for some opportunities than we are. I hope in the future there will be multiple GV-scale funders for AI GCR work, with different strengths, strategies, and comparative advantages — whether through existing large-scale philanthropies turning their attention to these risks or through new philanthropists entering the space.
• While Good Ventures is Open Philanthropy's largest philanthropic partner, we also regularly advise >20 other philanthropists who are interested to hear about GCR-related funding opportunities. (Our GHW team also does similar work partnering with many other philanthropists.) On the GCR side, we have helped move tens of millions of non-GV money to GCR-related organizations in just the past year, including some organizations that GV recently exited. GV and each of those other funders have their own preferences and restrictions we have to work around when recommending funding opportunities.
  • Among the AI funders we advise, Good Ventures is among the most open and flexible funders.
  • We're happy to see funders enter the space even if they don’t share our priorities or work with us. When more funding is available, and funders pursue a broader mix of strategies, we think this leads to a healthier and more resilient field overall.
• Many funding opportunities are a better fit for non-GV funders, e.g. due to funder preferences, restrictions, scale, or speed. We've also seen some cases where an organization can have more impact if they're funded primarily or entirely by non-GV sources. For example, it’s more appropriate for some types of policy organizations outside the U.S. to be supported by local funders, and other organizations may prefer support from funders without GV/OP’s past or present connections to particular grantees, AI companies, etc. Many of the funders we advise are actively excited to make use of their comparative advantages relative to GV, and regularly do so.
• We are excited for individuals and organizations that aren't a fit for GV funding to apply to some of OP’s GCR-related RFPs (e.g. here, for AI governance). If we think the opportunity is strong but a better fit for another funder, we'll recommend it to other funders.
  • To be clear, these other funders remain independent of OP and decline most of our recommendations, but in aggregate our recommendations often lead to target grantees being funded.
• We believe reducing AI GCRs via public policy is not an inherently liberal or conservative goal. Almost all the work we fund in the U.S. is nonpartisan or bipartisan and engages with policymakers on both sides of the aisle. However, at present, it remains the case that most of the individuals in the current field of AI governance and policy (whether we fund them or not) are personally left-of-center and have more left-of-center policy networks. Therefore, we think AI policy work that engages conservative audiences is especially urgent and neglected, and we regularly recommend right-of-center funding opportunities in this category to several funders.
• OP's AI teams spend almost no time directly advocating for specific policy ideas. Instead, we focus on funding a large ecosystem of individuals and organizations to develop policy ideas, debate them, iterate them, advocate for them, etc. These grantees disagree with each other very often (a few examples here), and often advocate for different (and sometimes ~opposite) policies.
• We think it's fine and normal for grantees to disagree with us, even in substantial ways. We've funded hundreds of people who disagree with us in a major way about fundamental premises of our GCRs work, including about whether AI poses GCR-scale risks at all (example).
• I think frontier AI companies are creating enormous risks to humanity, I think their safety and security precautions are inadequate, and I think specific reckless behaviors should be criticized. AI company whistleblowers should be celebrated and protected. Several of our grantees regularly criticize leading AI companies in their official communications, as do many senior employees at our grantees, and I think this happens too infrequently.
• Relatedly, I think substantial regulatory guardrails on frontier AI companies are needed, and organizations we've directed funding to regularly propose or advocate policies that ~all frontier AI companies seem to oppose (alongside some policies they tend to support).
• I'll also take a moment to address a few misconceptions that are somewhat less common in EA or rationalist spaces, but seem to be common elsewhere:
  • Discussion of OP online and in policy media tends to focus on our AI grantmaking, but AI represents a minority of our work. OP has many focus areas besides AI, and has given far more to global health and development work than to AI work.
  • We are generally big fans of technological progress. See e.g. my post about the enormous positive impacts from the industrial revolution, or OP's funding programs for scientific research, global health R&D, innovation policy, and related issues like immigration policy. Most technological progress seems to have been beneficial, sometimes hugely so, even though there are some costs and harms along the way. But some technologies (e.g. nuclear weapons, synthetic pathogens, and superhuman AI) are extremely dangerous and warrant extensive safety and security measures rather than a "move fast and break [the world, in this case]" approach.
  • We have a lot of uncertainty about how large AI risk is, exactly which risks are most worrying (e.g. loss of control vs. concentration of power), on what timelines the worst-case risks might materialize, and what can be done to mitigate them. As such, most of our funding in the space has been focused on (a) talent development, and (b) basic knowledge production (e.g. Epoch AI) and scientific investigation (example), rather than work that advocates for specific interventions.

I hope these clarifications are helpful, and lead to fruitful discussion, though I don't expect to have much time to engage with comments here.

Re: why our current rate of spending on AI safety is "low." At least for now, the main reason is lack of staff capacity! We're putting a ton of effort into hiring (see here) but are still not finding as many qualified candidates for our AI roles as we'd like. If you want our AI safety spending to grow faster, please encourage people to apply!

I'll also note that GCRs was the original name for this part of Open Phil, e.g. see this post from 2015 or this post from 2018.

Holden has been working on independent projects, e.g. related to RSPs; the AI teams at Open Phil no longer report to him and he doesn't approve grants. We all still collaborate to some degree, but new hires shouldn't e.g. expect to work closely with Holden.

We fund a lot of groups and individuals and they have a lot of different (and sometimes contradicting) policy opinions, so the short answer is "yes." In general, I really did mean the "tentative" in my 12 tentative ideas for US AI policy, and the other caveats near the top are also genuine.

That said, we hold some policy intuitions more confidently than others, and if someone disagreed pretty thoroughly with our overall approach and they also weren't very persuasive that their alternate approach would be better for x-risk reduction, then they might not be a good fit for the team.