Debate: did a $4B California ballot push for a single AI lab mislead the public?
NathanpmYoung · x · 2026-11-05
NathanpmYoung and JackYoustra argue over a California ballot effort. NathanpmYoung claims directing $4B to a single lab likely misled Californian voters and questions its long-term net benefit; JackYoustra pushes back that a cringe approach can still do far more good than harm. The underlying point: 'naive utilitarians' would run a misleading ballot to raise $1B for bednets, but real utilitarians wouldn't.
More from AGI Musings
- Neel Nanda debates tszzl: covert model underperformance is 'unjustifiable' — tszzl · 2026-11-05
- Building orbital data centers to dodge regulators is 'completely unserious' — zacharynado · 2026-11-05
- Reddit essay: AI may never be conscious—and that's fine — Own-Cry-5520 · 2026-11-05
- Internal safeguards won't stop hostile AI, researcher argues for external defenses — IgorGabrielan · 2026-11-05
- Stanisław Lem was the pre-2000 sci-fi writer who got AI right: fallible, grown, not programmed — zetalyrae · 2026-11-05
- Chamath: long-horizon AI tasks are 'still a joke,' warns of disillusionment trough — 2C_ornot2C · 2026-11-05