Artificial general intelligence researcher Ben Goertzel answered my question on charitable giving and gave his permission to publish it here. I think the opinion of highly educated experts who have read most of the available material is important to estimate the public and academic perception of risks from AI and the effectiveness with which the risks are communicated by LessWrong and the SIAI.
Alexander Kruel asked:
What would you do with $100,000 if it were given to you on the condition that you donate it to a charity of your choice?
Unsurprisingly, my answer is that I would donate the $100,000 to the OpenCog project which I co-founded and with which I'm currently heavily involved. This doesn't mean that I think OpenCog should get 100% of everybody's funding; but given my own state of knowledge, I'm very clearly aware that OpenCog could make great use of $100K for research working toward beneficial AGI and a positive Singularity. If I had $100M rather than $100K to give away, I would have to do more research into which other charities were most deserving, rather than giving it all to OpenCog!
What can one learn from this?
The SIAI is not the only option to work towards a positive Singularity
The SIAI should try to cooperate more closely with other AGI projects to potentially have a positive impact.
I'm planning to contact and ask various experts, who are aware of risks from AI, the same question.
Well, if you bothered looking at our/OpenCog's roadmap you'll see it doesn't expect AGI in a "few years".
What magical software engineering tools are you after that can't be built with the current tools we have?
If nobody attempts to build these then nothing will ever improve - people will just go "oh, that can't be done right now, let's just wait a while until the tools appear that make AGI like snapping lego together". Which is fine if you want to leave the R&D to other people... like us.
Well, if you bothered looking at our/OpenCog's roadmap you'll see it doesn't expect AGI in a "few years".
The roadmap on opencog.org has among its milestones: "2019-2021: Full-On Human Level AGI."
What magical software engineering tools are you after that can't be built with the current tools we have?
Well, if I knew, I'd be cashing in on the idea, not discussing it here. In any case, surely you must agree that claiming the ability to develop an AGI within a decade is a very extraordinary claim.
Artificial general intelligence researcher Ben Goertzel answered my question on charitable giving and gave his permission to publish it here. I think the opinion of highly educated experts who have read most of the available material is important to estimate the public and academic perception of risks from AI and the effectiveness with which the risks are communicated by LessWrong and the SIAI.
Alexander Kruel asked:
Ben Goertzel replied:
What can one learn from this?
I'm planning to contact and ask various experts, who are aware of risks from AI, the same question.