3 ms·
Please explain an EA position that could possibly suggest that they would deprioritize human lives in order to make AGI more comfortable when, for example, the
by urams 2mo ago
Please explain an EA position that could possibly suggest that they would deprioritize human lives in order to make AGI more comfortable when, for example, the largest EA philanthropy organization, Coefficient Giving, formerly Open Philanthropy, has given millions to Yudkowksy's MIRI which is currently among the most anti-AGI organizations on the planet?
Can you find any explicitly EA organization that is at all aligned in perspective with anything you suggested?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- postboxaerobics 2mo agoOpen Philantrophy was founded by Holden Karnofsky who was Dario Armodei's roommate and is married to his sister Daniela Armodei. He now works for Anthropic, a company that is explicitly building AGI.
- urams 2mo agoThanks for making an account to post this. Working to build AI at the company that is most publicly discussing the risks posed by AI to humanity and most advocating for guardrails (while getting an immense amount of flack for implementing them independently) doesn't seem to support anything about what you, or rather the other person said, about sacrificing humanity for anything AI related.
- postboxaerobics 2mo agoI don't really agree with the other commenter, I don't think EAs are intentionally sacrificing humanity for AI, but the fact it's unintentional doesn't really change the fact this is what they are doing. Anthropic are explicitly building ASI, using recursive self improvement, with no knowledge of how to control it. They spend only a minimal fraction of their funds on safety work, none of which relates to controlling ASI. I am open to being wrong about Anthropic, but it will be hard to convince me that a company developing ASI is prioritising safety. Do you really believe what they are doing is safe?
- urams 2mo agoI truly don't see any major problem with what they're doing. For any current significant risk (security, bio risks), their models are notoriously useless.
- pixl97 2mo agoThis is an odd take. OpenAI models you use are pretty useless for hacking. The models they have seem to be pretty damned good at it. It's kind of like saying you can't kill everyone with weapons when you're looking at what you can buy at the local Walmart and not what's in the 1000 foot deep missile silo. Also, it's kind of a once you build it, it's too late kind of issue. No model will be good enough, the problem is still in the future, we're all dead.
- watwut 2mo agoIf he believes it is as dangerous as he says while raisimg money and building it, he should STOP and work on slowing down the bubble. Instead, he is turbocharging development, otherwise said choosing to cause harm he warns about. That is literaly example of causing harm now and in near future, not caring about people now, only about vision.
- urams 2mo agohttps://fortune.com/2025/02/13/anthropic-hired-president-daniela-amodei-husband-ai-safety-responsible-scaling/ https://fortune.com/2025/02/13/anthropic-hired-president-dan... He works on the safety team and their responsible scaling policies. He literally may be working on slowing down AGI progress at Anthropic.
- watwut 2mo agoThey are not stopping. Simple as that. The quadrilles and regulations they ask are all about slowing down competition but not them. Hiring own husband to safety team while you raise money for (their words!) doom machine, while you do your utmost to scare people while you try to raise even more money from investors on doom ... does not show OP was not correct in their assessment.
- xg15 2mo agoAh yes, the public health representative of the tobacco company.
- xg15 2mo agoOut of curiosity, what does an explicit "anti-AGI" AI research organization do? Train a "definitely not AGI" AI?