Gavin

Founder @ Arb
Working (6-15 years of experience)
Pursuing a doctoral degree (e.g. PhD)
4148Joined Jun 2015
www.gleech.org/

Bio

https://www.gleech.org/

Co-founder of Arb, an AI / forecasting / etc consultancy. Doing a technical AI PhD.

Conflicts of interest: ESPR, EPSRC, Emergent Ventures, OpenPhil, Infrastructure Fund, Alvea.

Comments
355

Topic Contributions
3

Good post!

I doubt I have anything original to say. There is already cause-specific non-EA outreach. (Not least a little thing called Lesswrong!) It's great, and there should be more. Xrisk work is at least half altruistic for a lot of people, at least on the conscious level. We have managed the high-pay tension alright so far (not without cost). I don't see an issue with some EA work happening sans the EA name; there are plenty of high-impact roles where it'd be unwise to broadcast any such social movement allegiance. The name is indeed not ideal, but I've never seen a less bad one and the switching costs seem way higher than the mild arrogance and very mild philosophical misconnotations of the current one.

Overall I see schism as solving (at really high expected cost) some social problems we can solve with talking and trade.

I struggled a lot with it until I learned how to cook in that particular style (roughly: way more oil, MSG, nutritional yeast, two proteins in every recipe). Good luck!

Bostrom selects his most neglected paper here.

Answer by GavinOct 02, 20222921

There are two totally valid conclusions to draw from the structure you've drawn up: that CS people or EA people are deluded, or that the world at large, including extremely smart people, is extremely bad at handling weird or new things.

It seems bad in a few ways, including the ones you mentioned. I expect it to make longtermist groupthink worse, if (say) Kirsten stops asking awkward questions under (say) weak AI posts. I expect it to make neartermism more like average NGO work. We need both conceptual bravery and empirical rigour for both near and far work, and schism would hugely sap the pool of complements. And so on.

Yeah the information cascades and naive optimisation are bad. I have a post coming on a solution (or more properly, some vocabulary to understand how people are already solving it).

DMed examples.

You are totally right, Deutsch's argument is computability, not complexity. Pardon!

Serves me right for trying to recap 1 of 170 posts from memory.

Yeah maybe they could leave this stuff to their coaching calls

Load More