[raverbashing]

At this point I think that giving $5 to a homeless person in SF (even if they go straight to doing another shot) might be more productive than this self-aggrandizing vapid BS about some theoretical risk that might come in the future

Right now what's threatening the most people is war, famine and diseases. Climate change is a tangible future threat but I'd bet a couple $ that the JSO organizers are full EA proponents and are flying private jets to convince people to throw soup into works of art

[concordDance]

> BS about some theoretical risk that might come in the future

Like increased rate of hurricanes due to climate change?

One does need to seriously consider low probability, high impact events, like pandemics, in one's future planning and resource allocation.

[AlexandrB]

> Like increased rate of hurricanes due to climate change?

This is a bad analogy. The mechanisms and risks of climate change are reasonably well understood as are the solutions available to us now and even some possible future solutions.

When it comes to AGI, what's the risk? Something bad might happen? The mechanisms of AGI arising is also unknown since it has never happened before and it's not even known if it's possible. Finally, what's the solution? Prevent AGI research? Make sure every AGI project has a killswitch? How do you prevent something when you don't know if it is possible nor how it will arise?

Compare this to the concrete, measurable things we can do to slow down climate change and "AGI safety" seems like a make-work money pit.

[raverbashing]

> why do you disapprove of funding research into AI safety

This is what I'm replying to. And yes Climate Change is a worrying problem, but it won't be solved by people throwing tantrums in museums