Is it better to feed children, or fund "AI safety?"
0
Never closes
I am an Effective Altruist; it is better to feed children.
I am an Effective Altruist; I prefer to not feed children.
I am not an E/A; I prefer not to feed children.
I am not an E/A; it is better to feed children.
Some criticize "Effective Altruism" for many reasons. One particular sticking point is which causes are prioritized as "effective." For example, E/A adherents think that funneling millions of dollars to "AI safety" projects run by wealthy people, is better than feeding children.
Where do you stand?
This question is managed and resolved by Manifold.
Get 
1,000 to start trading!
1,000People are also trading
Related questions
Will non-profit funding for AI safety reach 100 billion US dollars in a year before 2030?
38% chance
Should smart, ethical people go into AI rather than climate tech? (subsidized)
69% chance
Are we going to create safety laws about AI?
54% chance
Will prioritizing corrigible AI produce safe results?
45% chance
In 2028, will AI be at least as big a political issue as abortion, according to funding?
83% chance
AI safety activist causes AI catastrophe to slow development before 2040?
15% chance
Will "We should try to automate AI safety work asap" make the top fifty posts in LessWrong's 2025 Annual Review?
14% chance
Will @EliezerYudkowsky reverse his opinion on AI safety, before 2030?
6% chance
Will AI be considered safe in 2030? (resolves to poll)
72% chance
Will the US Federal Government spend more than 1/1000th of its budget on AI Safety by 2028?
12% chance