This, I think, will make EA groups much better. Everyone should sign up! 

Here is a claim I made to my friend yesterday that I think is true and believe people continually underrate: given reasonable assumptions about the influx of incoming capital, getting into (ie working in/thinking about) AI/ AI Safety early has probably been better for GHD or AW than lots (maybe all, tho I haven’t crunched the numbers) of direct work in GHD and AW. 

I think this could even be true for EA CB (with much less confidence). AIS groups grow a lot faster than EA groups historically do and while the groups are often not that EA aligned, the leaders (who are, in my view, often very talented) are to various degrees. This is especially true for the ones who end up working full time in AIS: they often have proto-EA dispositions and these become intensified when they work around a bunch of EAs full time (though I can see two ways in which this is not as good as normal EAs: (1) being EA for social reasons and (2) being EA in stated but not revealed preference). TBC, I think having an EA group at a school make it much more likely that the leaders of the AIS group are aligned. 

I can also see worlds (though def not my mainline at the moment) where the best thing one could have done for quality adjusted EA CB is actually just supporting AIS groups. 

I don’t know how we should update/ by how much, but I think a reasonable way is the following: being ahead on some big emerging issue might just be more important than what seems like the obviously important thing that nobody does for bad reasons (ie GHD or AW). 

As money increases, the thing that is needed is more ideas for where to put money and more people to act on big ideas to deploy it. As a result, I think EA CB (which results in both) is likely the best place to put money into! 

Whooooo!!!! 

I agree with all of this. One thing missing is just joining AIS/EA before it was cool/got much more money. 

The Fallacy of Similar Magnitudes

A name I came up with for a pattern that comes up often enough to deserve one. Here’s a particular instance: 

Suppose you're a longtermist who thinks the vast majority of the (net positive) moral weight is in the far future, that AI existential risk is above 1%, and that it's reasonably tractable to reduce. Some people who hold all three premises still say things like: "AI safety has maybe two orders of magnitude more resources than animal welfare, so the marginal dollar is better spent on animal welfare."

This is the fallacy of similar magnitudes: in this case, the application is that neglectedness comparisons only matter when the causes are within a couple orders of magnitude of each other in stakes. Under the stated premises, they aren’t: the a priori difference in expected value is way larger. Two orders of magnitude in resources doesn't move the needle even a bit. 

Note: this AW response could be ok if you have certain views about risk aversion or worldview diversification, but that’s besides the point. 

I am helping co-run the Generator Residency, which enables generalist talent into AIS, and we will soon be posting lots of ideas we think generalists in AIS could work on. Be on the lookout! 

Lots of people in the Bay seem to be thinking about/preparing for/making funding decisions based on the idea that lots of philanthropy will be given to AIS/EA cause areas very soon (i.e. end of year-ish). I would love for someone to write the comprehensive steel man case against this, as I think it’s probably underrated (some reasons to think they won’t give the money/it won’t be as much as some assume. Happy to comment/ speak to whoever is interested in doing this.  

Post this on LW and youll prob get more offers 

This is a very good post.