Live data from Hacker News

Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

openphilanthropy.org

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

#101

I think there are more important causes than "reducing potential risks from advanced AI". Honest to god, $30M will go a long way in saving lives TODAY. Flint, MI anyone?

The cult of 'AI risk' is a religious belief that brooks no dissent, and unfortunately has its claws in a lot of otherwise smart people.

Ways in which it resembles a religious belief: proponents argue passionately, seem impossible to be dissuaded even in the face of ridicule, and talk about some sort of transcendence beyond the normal human condition; some get together and chant litanies.

Ways it is different: obsession over cognitive heuristics and biases, AI is not supernatural and must be human caused, behavior not totally certain (it is "risk" after all), no perks that true believers receive should their hopes and wishes come true that non-believers or apostates don't also receive nor revenge fantasies of such, no requirement for tithing, no Big Alpha divine or otherwise to represent or interpret or decree official approved beliefs (though I'll admit Big Yud can seem close), no anthropomorphizing the AI, and proponents concede evidence not faith must determine beliefs and actions so are willing to look for such.

Re: Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

#102

Scroll to the end. This is a $30M grant to the guy's roommate and future brother-in-law. Unbelievable.

I don't see this as a problem. If I had tons of money and knew someone (by any connection) who was doing amazing work I would definitely chip in.

It's not his money, though. Also, when you invest in your friend's business, you don't get to deduct that in your taxes.

Re: Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

#103

If some of the comments I read on other AI related articles here on HN are correct, 1 mil / year per expert * 10 experts per year = 30 Mil in 3 years Maybe $30 mil isn't as much as we think it is in AI business?

... or more than 100 top French researchers for 3 years (Research Director, top pay at the end of the career is about 6000 euros / ~10000 for the company).

[source : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directeur_de_recherche_au_CNRS ]

Re: Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

#104

Scroll to the end. This is a $30M grant to the guy's roommate and future brother-in-law. Unbelievable.

I want to make sure I fully understand the accusation here.

You're saying that the Open Philanthropy Fund - which is funded by an $8.3 billion grant from Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, also close associates - is funneling $30M money to an organization that pays below market rates (https://www.quora.com/What-is-compensation-like-at-the-non-p...), run by people who have dedicated their professional careers and millions of dollars to philanthropic causes despite being surrounded by way more lucrative opportunities for anyone with their skillsets.

If this were the scheme, there are countless better ways to do it.

They could just give them the money without any pretense. Dustin and Cari didn't have to tie up this money in OPP. They could have skipped the years of working with Holden and others for years to identify the best giving opportunities, avoided any blowback, and just used their money the way every other billionaire does. Or, instead of just giving it away, they could have made him an absurdly compensated CEO of a new startup.

And none of that would have attracted any attention, no sneering condemnation, just business as usual.

But that's not what they did.

They've spent years painstakingly identifying the best causes they could find - anti-malarial nets, poverty relief via direct cash transfers, biosecurity, intestinal work treatment, Schistosomiasis, prison reform, and yes, AI safety. They've oriented their entire lives around this project, so of course many of the people they're close to are working on similar projects. So it really, really shouldn't be a shocking twist that one of the people they're close to might be in a position to use a small fraction of their available funds for a lot of potential good. There are fewer than 100 people working full-time on AI safety today. If you've concluded that it's an important cause area, there really aren't many options.

And even then, they didn't have to disclose their personal connection. They really could have just left well enough alone. But because they're dedicated to transparency even in the face of stupidity, they made their personal connection prominent and obvious. So now anyone on the Internet can cruise on by and - ignoring the millions donated to third-world poverty and health causes, ignoring the multitude of ways the money could have been quietly and selfishly used, ignoring the fact that non-profits invariably pay below-market rates, ignoring the copious public writing and research that's gone into these decisions - can simply gawk and say "unbelievable".

When people say "No good deed goes unpunished", this is what they're talking about.

Re: Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this as a problem. If I had tons of money and knew someone (by any connection) who was doing amazing work I would definitely chip in.

It's not his money, though. Also, when you invest in your friend's business, you don't get to deduct that in your taxes.

It's not Holden's money - he works for OPP, he doesn't fund it. The money comes from Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, and it's already in a trust.

Re: Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

#106
post #52

Two organizations that exploit the implications of the word "Open" as it is used in the world of technology to market their own private companies and organizations.

The Open Philanthropy Project uses the word 'Open' to mean (http://www.openphilanthropy.org/what-open-means-us):

"Open to many possibilities ... instead of starting with a predefined set of focus areas, we’re considering a wide variety of causes where our philanthropy could help to improve others’ lives." and "Open about our work ... Very often, key discussions and decisions happen behind closed doors, and it’s difficult for outsiders to learn from and critique philanthropists’ work. We envision a world in which philanthropists increasingly document and share their research, reasoning, results and mistakes to help each other learn more quickly and serve others more effectively."

This all seems pretty useful so I don't get what your criticism is.

Re: Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pretty unbelievable, since it's not true. The actual quote: >OpenAI researchers Dario Amodei and Paul Christiano are both technical advisors to Open Philanthropy and live in the same house as Holden. In addition, Holden is engaged to Dario’s sister Daniela. His roommates/sister's fiancé work there. That's all.

Holden is engaged to the sister of the guy he is funding. Hence, "future brother-in-law".

"Running an organization" is not the same thing as "owning an organization". Maybe at a company the CEO might have shares, but there's no equivalent at a non-profit. It's just a job that pays below market rates. If money was the goal, there's a plethora of readily-available much-higher-value opportunities that won't get sneering Internet comments.

Re: Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

#108

I think there are more important causes than "reducing potential risks from advanced AI". Honest to god, $30M will go a long way in saving lives TODAY. Flint, MI anyone?

The cult of 'AI risk' is a religious belief that brooks no dissent, and unfortunately has its claws in a lot of otherwise smart people.

I'm old enough to remember when "cult" didn't just mean "people who have high confidence in ideas that seem weird to me".

Re: Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We can formally prove what a system is capable of." This is not true. By Rice's theorem, either the system is too dumb to be useful, or we can't prove what it can do.

An airgapped computer is not going to be capable of taking over the world. Further, Turing completeness is not required to be "useful". You can get to the moon without Turing completeness.

Right, because there's no way even small computers can communicate through air. Just one tiny crack is all that's needed.

And that's not even going into things the AI might say that'll convince the gatekeepers to just voluntarily let it out.

Re: Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI

#110
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cult of 'AI risk' is a religious belief that brooks no dissent, and unfortunately has its claws in a lot of otherwise smart people.

You can't get rid of human religious longing easily. Instead of the rapture and armageddon, we have transhumanism and ai risk.

Fun fact: You can apply this template to anyone worried about any potential disaster.

"Behold the cult of global warming, who believe that the unclean practices of man will anger the sky gods and bring down furious vengeance. Sad to see so many otherwise-smart climatologists drawn in by this drivel."

"'Antibiotic resistance'? Oh my god, you must be one of those 'biosecurity cultists'. Do you really believe that magical microscopic beings are going to grow strong because we're feeding farm animals the wrong food, and that those same invisible creatures will destroy human civilization? Oh man, do you have chants? What a nutjob."

"Seriously, you're really afraid of 'nuclear weapons'? You really believe that people will somehow cast some magic spell that will turn rocks into fire and destroy entire cities, that this same magic will cause 'mutations' and a 'nuclear winter'? Can't you see that you're part of a doomsday cult?"

Post reply on HN