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
saved by
related reading
- Where I agree and disagree with Eliezer — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Notes on Existential Risk from Artificial Superintelligencemichaelnotebook.com
- The Artificiality of Alignmentjoinreboot.org
- Deep atheism and AI risk - Joe Carlsmithjoecarlsmith.com
- Existential Risk from AI: An Exposition for Mathematiciansalkjash.github.io
- My personal cruxes for working on AI safety — EA Forumforum.effectivealtruism.org
- Post 47: How I Formed My Own Views About AI Safety - Neel Nandaneelnanda.io
- Why I'm Teaching TikTokers About Existential Riskratorthodox.substack.com
- Brain dump on the diversity of AI risk | Jascha’s blogsohl-dickstein.github.io
- The Problem — LessWronglesswrong.com
- My views on “doom” — LessWronglesswrong.com
- The case against AI alignment — LessWronglesswrong.com