E.g. mo's megaprojects link in another comment!

FWIW I agree with the sentiment!

However, I think this post as it stands leans a lot on the Importance dimension of the ITN framework, gestures at Neglectedness, and doesn't directly address Tractability. To be clear, that's fine! Not every post needs to address everything; some of the linked posts address those somewhat; other resources out there do too. 

But I do think that the question of 'what can be done with 100s of extra $bn' is also a question of T and N, and I think part (majority?) of what Ransohoff is saying is that we're woefully unprepared ~1 level down from 'cause area' at the infrastructure / intervention / ecosystem / etc. level (where T and N mostly cash out, IMO).  

If people have or can point to write-ups about how many and what size of shovel-ready projects we have for the various animal problems listed: definitely post and signal boost those!!

Maybe a crux here might be 'what sort of net effect one expects from more or less just spending any amount of $ to hire anyone you can to try to find those projects'. Not saying that's the author's take per se; but I am somewhat skeptical of things shaped like "we need[...] a lot more people working on [X]" if what they mean is 'we need to get warm bodies on this at all costs'. People can have net negative impact! There are opportunity costs to going all-in like that! 

Overall I hope a large chunk of this wave of philanthropy goes to animal welfare, but also that it can be spent well and deployed quickly :)

Very cool, and will strongly be considering switching my donations if/where I can, potentially even at the cost of tax-effectiveness (in Australia)!

Weighing in as a comment I made has been cited below: thank you for your moderation efforts. 

I'm an admittedly infrequent poster/commenter on the Forum, in no small part because I don't have a lot of time on my hands. As such I'm often discouraged from engaging with certain topics or (potentially) productive disagreements because I simply cannot afford to engage with the kind of [charitable ? detailed : gish galloping] posts and comments exemplified in this thread. 

Just wanted to provide something to counterbalance any adverse selection in responses. 

1. I think it reflects poorly on you that a "highly-upvoted" comment was a stronger update towards 'the Forum at large is wrong' more than 'you were wrong' or even 'you should change how you communicate'.
2. On the object level: I read your post, and like ~half of people who reacted to it, disagreed with it; specifically I think it has narrative-like qualities, and regardless of how much we quibble over the precise point at which text can be reasonably called "narrative", I thought it was non-evidence-based argumentation, which you were arguing against.
3. I think in general it is bad forum etiquette to "snitch tag" like this. I think you're misrepresenting my comment and raising it in an irrelevant context. 

Is there any work on calibration / assessing how well the 2024 report held up? Would be really useful to know how well the hiring managers' (etc.) predictions can be expected to hold up. Put another way, everything in this report rings true to me, but if it's true but e.g. the opportunities/jobs for Connectors and Amplifiers don't actually manifest, then... that seems bad?

Rather than go through this paragraph-by-paragraph, let me pick one particular thing.

• Your overall thesis is that there's little or no evidence behind many models of AI risk.
• By Ad-hoc predictive models, you've cited a sum total of 2 blog posts criticising AI 2027 - hardly the "academic consensus" you ask for in that paragraph.
• You also don't actually point to any specific or characteristic issues from those 2 blog posts in that paragraph, instead appealing to heuristics, concept handles, and accusations. I would honestly describe that paragraph as a narrative argument.

Overall I disagree and am also downvoting this post as not a helpful contribution.

I think this dichotomy is interesting: IMO "accountability" and "healthiness" are different dimensions. I'm voting 'no' on 'protecting influential members from accountability', but abstaining from 'encouraging healthy accountability', because while there is quite a bit of that (again IMO), there's also unhealthy accountability at times, which (once again IMO) contributes to sometimes sparse details being published.

Oh man... this really make it sound like It's So Over

I also have this question. As someone looking to apply for funding to continue an org in the space, all of this uncertainty is tough to grapple with.