You too can start your own space exploration company if you are lucky enough to somehow obtain capital and your luck compounds sufficiently from that capital.
That luck is out of grasp of the vast majority of the population. It isn't a matter of effort, but mostly luck. Playing the lottery is not a realistic strategy to put forth from a monopoly competition perspective. 90% of startups fail, for example. They worked hard, but were unlucky.
We should do both and it makes sense that different orgs have different focuses. It makes no sense to berate one set of orgs for not working on the exact type of thing that you want. PauseAI and ControlAI have each received less than $1 million in funding. They are both very small organizations as far as these types of advocacy non-profits go.
If it makes sense to handle all of these issues, then couldn't these organizations just acknowledge all of these issues? If reducing harm is the goal, I don't see a reason to totally segregate different issues, especially not by drawing a dividing line between the ones OpenAI already acknowledges and the ones it doesn't. I've never seen any self-described "AI safety" organizations that tackles any of the present-day issues AI companies cause.
If you've never seen it then you haven't been paying attention. For example Anthropic (the biggest AI org which is "safety" aligned) released a big report last year on metal well being [1]. Also here is their page on societal impacts [2]. Here is PauseAI's list of risks [3], it has deepfakes as its second issue!
The problem is not that no one is trying to solve the issues that you mentioned, but that it is really hard to solve them. You will probably have to bring large class action law suits, which is expensive and risky (if it fails it will be harder to sue again). Anthropic can make their own models safe, and PauseAI can organize some protests, but neither can easily stop grok from producing endless CSAM.
PauseAI's official proposal recommends[0]: "Only allow deployment of models after no dangerous capabilities are present." Their list of dangerous capabilities[1] does not include deepfakes, but it does include several unrealized ones that fit the description of this post here, including "a recursive loop of self-improvement, spinning rapidly out of control... called an intelligence explosion".
I appreciate you pointing out the Risks page though, as it does disprove my hyperbole about ignoring present-day harms completely, although I was disheartened that the page just appears to list things that they believe actions "could be mitigated by a Pause" (emphasis mine).
The amount of cattle required to maintain pasture is way fewer than we have right now. From a CO2 perspective factory farmed cattle tends to look a little better than "free-range" mostly due to reduced land use changes (but it is obviously worse from a cruelty perspective). Finally, we can still have farm animals without eating them!!
Can't we argue for the low amount of anti-matter as a type of anthropic principle? The early universe was super dense meaning that areas with imbalance would quickly annihilate and leave only one type of matter. Then, due to rapid expansion, our observable universe is dominated by only one type of matter. If we imagine a universe with a more even mix it would be less welcoming to life, so we are less likely to observe it. Has someone modeled something like this?
The anthropic principle doesn't imply that our entire observable universe has to contain only matter.
Why shouldn't we observe clouds of anti matter and matter annihilating millions or billions of light years away? Why does the annihilation have to have happened so early on that we can't see any evidence anywhere?
I think there does need to be an explanation and it can't be an anthropic principle cop out.
Not only there is no evidence for the existence of antimatter in quantities comparable with matter, but there also is no logical necessity for this.
People who entertain the idea of an initial state with equal amounts of matter and antimatter do this because thus the properties of the matter that are conserved, except the energy, would sum to zero in the initial state.
However, such people forget that not only the particle-antiparticle pairs that can be generated or annihilated through electromagnetic interactions have this property that the conserved quantities except the energy sum to zero.
The particle-antiparticle symmetry is important only for the electromagnetic interactions, while other interactions have more complex symmetries.
All the so-called weak interactions are equivalent with the generation or annihilation of groups of 4 particles, for which all the conserved properties except energy sum to zero. Such a group of 4 particles typically consists of a quark, an antiquark, a charged lepton or anti-lepton and a neutrino or antineutrino.
For instance the beta decay of a neutron into a proton is equivalent with the generation of 4 particles, an u quark, an anti-d quark, an electron and an antineutrino. The electron and the antineutrino fly away, while the anti-d quark annihilates a d quark, so the net effect for the nucleus is a change of a d quark into an u quark, which transforms a neutron into a proton.
The generation and annihilation of groups of 4 particles in the weak interactions are mediated by the W bosons, but this is a detail of the mechanism of the interactions, which is necessary for computations of numeric values, but not for the explanation of the global effect of the weak interactions, for which the transient existence of the W intermediate bosons can be ignored.
So besides the symmetry between a particle and an anti-particle, we have a symmetry that binds certain groups of 4 quarks and leptons.
There is a third symmetry, which binds groups of 8 particles. For instance, there are 3 kinds of u quarks, 3 kinds of d quarks, electrons and neutrinos, a total of 8 particles that belong to the so-called first generation of matter particles (i.e. the lightest such particles).
All the conserved quantities except energy sum to zero for this group of 8 particles. The neutrino is necessary in this group so that the spin will also sum to zero, not only the electric charge and the hadronic charge.
These 8 kinds of particles are exactly those that are supposed to compose in equal quantities the matter of the Universe at the Big Bang.
So all the conserved quantities except energy sum to zero for the Universe at the Big Bang, when it is composed entirely of ordinary matter, without any antimatter.
Therefore there is no need for antimatter in the initial state.
There is no known reason for this symmetry between the 8 particles of a generation of quarks and leptons, except that this allows for the initial state at the Big Bang to have a zero sum for the conserved properties.
It can be speculated that this symmetry might be associated with a supplementary hyper-weak interaction, in the same way as the symmetry between certain groups of 4 quarks and leptons is associated with the weak interaction. Such an interaction would allow the generation and annihilation of ordinary matter, without antimatter, but with an extraordinarily low probability.
This might be pedantic, but I think "happy" is not the right metric. I would love to run a survey which instead asks "are you unhappy" or "are you content"
reply