3 ms·
I think the EA community is very open about the uncertainties around the risks of AGI and the difficulty in addressing them. The point is that if there is even
by adleyjulian 3y ago
I think the EA community is very open about the uncertainties around the risks of AGI and the difficulty in addressing them. The point is that if there is even a 0.01% chance that AGI could threaten the existence of humanity then it's worth spending time and thought addressing it.
NASA has the Sentry program to look out for asteroids, with a budget of around $35 million, and the odds of a "big one" hitting in our life time is less than 1 in 10,000.
That said, the majority of EA spending is on global health and development to address immediate issues, on programs like Against Malaria.
- JohnFen 3y ago> The point is that if there is even a 0.01% chance that AGI could threaten the existence of humanity then it's worth spending time and thought addressing it. The disconnect I see is that if there is even a 0.01% chance that is could threaten the existence of humanity, then why in the world would anyone actively pursue making it happen before figuring out a way to mitigate that risk?
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y agoI think it’s arms race logic. “If we don’t pursue it before figuring out risk, worse people will pursue it without figuring out the risk.”
- JohnFen 3y agoThat's not logical, though. Assuming that "worse people" will develop it anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to let them, and focus entirely on how to mitigate the risk instead?
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y agoI mean, yeah. I phrased it in a weak way intentionally.