> Isn’t this just a statement that you disagree either with the relative probability of an AI-related disaster or the relative degree of harm it could cause?
Yes, but the point of this movement is that they're supposed to be evidenced-based and maximising ROI. There is evidence for the existence and threat of global warming and drug-resistant bacterial. When you move away from charitable efforts whose effectiveness we can directly measure, you're not doing EA any more, just regular emotional/value-based charity.
I do have different values and feelings about such non-evidence-based charity, and I think theirs are morally repugnant, especially when they claim to be doing EA.
Yes, but the point of this movement is that they're supposed to be evidenced-based and maximising ROI. There is evidence for the existence and threat of global warming and drug-resistant bacterial. When you move away from charitable efforts whose effectiveness we can directly measure, you're not doing EA any more, just regular emotional/value-based charity.
I do have different values and feelings about such non-evidence-based charity, and I think theirs are morally repugnant, especially when they claim to be doing EA.