I'd like to point to the "Effective Altruism" movement as a counterpoint. It's a bunch of nerds that decided on a rational approach to charity. But nowadays, these mostly male, white, Silicon-Valley-type, science-loving and science-fiction-reading do-gooders have found the threat of runaway AI as one of their supposedly objective main issues. Artificial Intelligence which, as it happens, is also something that these people have an interest in. What are the chance?
(Not that there aren't parts of EA that I think are worthwhile, such as givewell.org. Just as an example of how hard it seems to be to arrive and any purely rational outcome).
>But nowadays, these mostly male, white, Silicon-Valley-type, science-loving and science-fiction-reading do-gooders have found the threat of runaway AI as one of their supposedly objective main issues. Artificial Intelligence which, as it happens, is also something that these people have an interest in. What are the chance?
The chances are 5%. That is, 5% of people involved in EA actually put any money towards the AI stuff. 80%, on the other hand, consider global poverty worth throwing money at.
(Not that there aren't parts of EA that I think are worthwhile, such as givewell.org. Just as an example of how hard it seems to be to arrive and any purely rational outcome).