Post 45: Simplify EA Pitches to “Holy Shit, X-Risk” — Neel Nanda
I defend the key claims of “AI has a >=1% chance and biorisk has a 0.1% chance of causing x-risk within my lifetime”, and argue that these are sufficient for most Effective Altruism conclusions, no need for moral philosophy
Post 45: Simplify EA Pitches to “Holy Shit, X-Risk” Feb 11 Written By Neel Nanda TL;DR If you believe the key claims of "there is a >=1% chance of AI causing x-risk and >=0.1% chance of bio causing x-risk in my lifetime" this is enough to justify the core action relevant points of EA. This clearly matters under most reasonable moral views and the common discussion of longtermism, future generations and other details of moral philosophy in intro materials is an unnecessary distraction. Thanks to Jemima Jones for accountability and encouragement. Partially inspired by Holden Karnofsky’s excellen
Explore this link on the map →saved by
related reading
- Why I am not a longtermist – Windows On Theorywindowsontheory.org
- You will be OK — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Where I agree and disagree with Eliezer — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Why AI Will Save the World | Andreessen Horowitza16z.com
- The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 2 - Wait But Whywaitbutwhy.com
- Existential risk from artificial intelligence - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- Saving Everyone, Everywhere, Across Space and Time - 34th Street Magazine34st.com
- AI Risk and Opportunity: Humanity's Efforts So Far — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Doing EA Better — EA Forumforum.effectivealtruism.org
- Notes on Existential Risk from Artificial Superintelligencemichaelnotebook.com
- The case for reducing existential risks - 80,000 Hours80000hours.org
- Why AI risks are the world’s most pressing problems | 80,000 Hours80000hours.org