Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

They were trying to ascertain if I would need help. A much better question format that isn't so problematic would be along the lines of "I have X (clothes, blankets, whatever). Would you like to have that?" If someone isn't actually homeless but would be happy to have a free blanket, what do you care? Maybe that blanket will help prevent them from becoming homeless.

This seems hard, given:

- (a) The cost of starting an AI venture is minimal (perfectly within reach for a small group or a smart individual with $10 million or less for salaries plus cloud computing expenses). It's a lot harder to keep tabs on small and non-obvious activity like this than, say, the enormous centrifuge facilities needed to refine uranium for nuclear weapons.

- (b) The personal and societal economic, and other, benefits of advancing the state of the art in AI are potentially enormous. People will be motivated to try, whether their goal is to line their pockets, to better understand what intelligence is by advancing the state of the art of trying to put it into machines, or to make the world a better place.

- (c) The problem domain is not well understood, so it's possible to stumble into a dangerous design by accident.

It seems like only some extreme dystopian scenario could halt the progress of technology to the point where an AI-related disaster becomes impossible.

For example, a global war or disaster that destroys civilization's logistical and technological bases, kills much of the world population and forces the survivors to focus mainly on survival. Or an ideological revolution that sees all the nerds of the world lined up against a wall and shot, and those who remain alive become culturally permanently uninterested in advancing technology to avoid the same fate. Or a world-dominating tyrannical government that keeps a close watch on every expert programmer and computer system in the world, monitoring to make sure unauthorized AI experiments don't take place.

Even that might not be enough, because if any of the human population survives, even the biggest global catastrophe, cultural revolution or tyrannical world empire's effects probably won't last more than a few thousand years.

but I have misgivings. in particular, the idea that marginal charitable dollars ought to be used to fund philosophers to think abstract thoughts is very counterintuitive!

(every argument that it's THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD seems to have the same form. first give me a bunch of weird historical and metaphysical assumptions, then make me admit I'd assign them a finite probability of being true, then multiply by a kajillion future simulated lives or whatever.)

most of the philosophers who research this stuff, and most of the people involved in Effective Altruism, are part of the same niche subculture. i don't think this is a grift, I think they are quite honest in their convictions. but it makes me go "hmmmmm".

"You are outside a burning building and are told that inside one room is a child and inside another is a painting by Picasso. You can save one of them. To do the most good, which do you choose?"

The point he's trying to illustrate is that, if you knew for certain that you could turn around and sell the Picaso for millions and use that money to purchase malaria bed nets, the expected number of lives saved by using the Picaso could be hundreds, and so there's a moral dilemma present.

Like many hypothetical questions, this one feels a bit "off" or "unrealistic", but if you don't get hung up on the oddities, I think one can sense the essence of his question, and it reminded me of the point you're making here as well as a responder's question asking you why you think the way you do.

I do think these questions are hard for us to wrap our heads around -- how to value high probability immediacy against somewhat uncertain non-proximal/non-immediate things that might be "much higher value". Part of my human brain goes splat when I try to weigh these things.

In terms of the moral dilemma with the painting, I do have quite a bit of sympathy for the argument that one should do what they feel will produce the most good, which might be to save the painting and purchase malaria nets. My father on the other hand seemed to believe that to be absolutely morally wrong, which seems to be siding with your sentiments. Practically speaking, I think I'd almost certainly save the child's life, because one's human impulses would be so strong that they would override any high-and-lofty-rationality, and one wouldn't have time anyway to do deep analysis. But the question in a hypothetical sense does seem quite valid and hard.