I'd love to! I'll send you a DM.

I don't have much confidence in how AI will go, so this is very speculative, but one consideration for personal planning that I think about:

If AI does become as powerful as some hope (and doesn't kill us all), then maybe your personal situation (money, power) at a particular crucial point will be very important. Examples:

• are you still alive when crucial health advances come that could keep you alive much longer?
• can you afford those crucial health advances? (for yourself and/or loved ones)
• are you still alive when technology to "upload" your mind works well, and can you afford it?
• is there going to be some future grab for resources at a crucial time (before or after uploading...), and will you be in a good position for that?
  • hard for me to speculate about what those resources are, but for a probably-quite-silly example: Maybe we'll auction off whole solar systems?

How you answer these questions could affect whether you live for the next million years, and what that life is like. I see those as reasons to prioritize personal health, money, and power more than you would otherwise.

Note: I'm not actually living my life according to this prescription. If I had to answer why, I think it's partly that I think probably AI progress will stall out before creating such scientific/tech breakthroughs that allow for uploading minds. But even a small chance could be worth optimizing for, so I'm not sure I'm being rational about this.

(This is about personal planning, but sort of parallels some EA considerations, like "value lock-in".)

Makes sense.

This seems mostly reasonable, but also seems like it has some unstated (rare!) exceptions that maybe seem too obvious to state, but that I think would be good to state anyway.

E.g. if you already have reason to believe an organization isn't engaging in good faith, or is inclined to take retribution, then giving them more time to plan that response doesn't necessarily make sense.

Maybe some other less extreme examples along the same lines.

I wouldn't be writing this comment if the language in the post hedged a bit more / left more room for exceptions, but reading a sentence like this makes me want to talk about exceptions:

When posting critical things publicly, however, unless it's very time-sensitive we should be letting orgs review a draft first.

Makes sense.

We can't sustain current growth levels

Is this about GDP growth or something else? Sustaining 2% GDP growth for a century (or a few) seems reasonably plausible?

Not quite the same question but I believe ACE started as one of the CEA children but is a separate entity now.

Thanks!

It still doesn't fully entail Matt's claim, but the content of the interview gets a lot closer than that description. You don't need to give it a full listen, I've quoted the relevant part:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/THgezaPxhvoizkRFy/clarifications-on-diminishing-returns-and-risk-aversion-in?commentId=ppyzWLuhkuRJCifsx

When I listened to the interview, I briefly thought to myself that that level of risk-neutrality didn't make sense. But I didn't say anything about that to anyone, and I'm pretty sure I also didn't play through in my head anything about the actual implications if Sam were serious about it.

I wonder if we could have taken that as a red flag. If you take seriously what he said, it's pretty concerning (implies a high chance of losing everything, though not necessarily anything like what actually happened)!