i don't think it's nonsense exactly. i think it merits some funding, and we'll probably be glad we did it even if it turns out there never was a risk of an unfr

i don't think it's nonsense exactly. i think it merits some funding, and we'll probably be glad we did it even if it turns out there never was a risk of an unfriendly superintelligence. but I have misgivings. in particular, the idea that marginal charitable dollars ought to be used to fund philosophers to think abstract thoughts is very counterintuitive! (every argument that it's THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD seems to have the same form. first give me a bunch of weird historical and metaphysical assumptions, then make me admit I'd assign them a finite probability of being true, then multiply by a kajillion future simulated lives or whatever.) most of the philosophers who research this stuff, and most of the people involved in Effective Altruism, are part of the same niche subculture. i don't think this is a grift, I think they are quite honest in their convictions. but it makes me go "hmmmmm".