A tale of 2.75 orthogonality theses

The article: “A tale of 2.75 orthogonality theses”

Fundamental Justification

What outcomes were to be expected before you started the project? What were unusually good and unusually bad possible outcomes? (Please avoid hindsight bias and take the interests of all sentient beings into account.)

Clearing up confusion within the EA community, esp interested non-experts. Creating a go-to resource for the specific conversation about AI risk in which people use the visual 'orthogonality' analogy as though it was an argument for high likelihood of AI doom. Potentially shifting the EA movement towards prioritising other areas if the aren't stronger arguments for AI risk.

What actual outcomes are you aware of?

A few individuals confirmed that they had the confusion I was concerned about, and that the post cleared it up to them.

Who can make a legitimate claim to a fraction of the impact, and have you talked to them?

The people mentioned in the acknowledgement. I haven't talked to them about this submission, since I'd be very surprised if they were interested in formally claiming anything.

Who are the current owners of the impact and what fraction do they each own?

Me.

Procedural Questions

What is your minimum valuation under which you’ll not sell any shares in your impact?

€50

What would you have done had there been no chance to get retro funding? (This helps us assess our impact but has no effect on our evaluation of the certificate’s impact.)

I didn't know there was when I wrote it.

What can we improve about this process?

See my other submission