Algo_Law

Karma: 336

BSc (Hons) Computer Science with Artificial Intelligence

Master of Laws (LLM) Space Law

PhD Candidate (Law) - Title: “AI and Machine Learning Nascent Visual Biometrics in Police Intelligence and Criminal Evidence – Impacts on Reliability and Fairness”

I currently work in the criminal justice system of England & Wales, as well as researching my PhD. My academic history in AI and in Law have resulted in an avid interest in all things AI Law (esp criminal law and human rights law) and its value to Longtermist principles. If you ever want to chat about the topic at all, please feel free to pop me a message:)

Algo_Law Jul 17, 2022, 10:58 AM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Recommendations for non-technical books on AI?
If you enjoyed some of the issues raised in Weapons of Math Destruction (which I really enjoyed, as it’s an AI book written by an actual developer but focuses on the social issues), you may enjoy going down the regulation/policy rabbithole. None of these are EA books, but I think that’s important and in some ways makes them better due to a wider viewpoint.

- Algorithmic Regulation by Karen Yeung and Martin Lodge
This is a great, user-friendly intro to algorithmic regulation, especially because it also explores the how and more importantly why of regulation efforts. Made up of essays from a variety of experts in different areas.

- Robot Rules by Jacob Turner
This is a really good, highly detailed and yet simple introduction to a lot of the legal and regulatory challenges of AI. Written by a very knowledgeable UK-based lawyer. Quite a broad scope but a good foundation of knowledge in this area.

- Advanced Introduction to Law and Artificial Intelligence
This is a bit more ‘lawyery’ but is still easy to understand for a general reader. It goes via theme which is useful, eg liability, legal personhood, weaponry. Covers multiple Western and some Eastern jurisdictions with examples of how various countries have approached issues.

I also added these as good examples because they don’t fall into the ‘America is the World’ trap that a lot of books do. They focus on global policy and how it interlinks, without just talking about US policy and assuming it’s global.

Algo_Law Jul 17, 2022, 10:11 AM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Does the idea of AGI that benevolently control us appeal to EA folks?
I’m not sure I can think of a single example from history or nature where a more advanced species/culture had power over a less advanced/adapted one, and where that ended up well for the underling.

Algo_Law Jul 13, 2022, 3:58 PM
11 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Announcing the Center for Space Governance
This is really fantastic news, and is a much needed area of work. I did my master’s degree in space law and it was such an intruiging area of governance. The current state of space governance and space law is the equivalent of trying to run modern society using only the laws of the Roman Empire. I think if people knew how outdated our international agreements were, and how unsuitable they are for modern space governance (let alone expansion, extraction, and colonisation!), they’d be a lot more panicked about getting space governance right.

Very excited to see the publication of your research agenda.

Algo_Law Jul 13, 2022, 3:42 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Pile of Law and Law-Following AI
This is a really interesting piece of research. It is certainly a good omen for access to justice, both directly and indirectly.

The issue of balancing privacy with transparency is an interesting one, and one I’ve done a lot of work in within Criminal Justice. It’s never an easy decision to make, and I had never considered what good training material it would make for privacy-centred LLMs.

I’m still not completely sold on LFAI, but I agree that this is a promising factor in bringing it from theory to a more experimental basis.

Algo_Law Jul 13, 2022, 8:40 AM
18 points
0 ∶ 0
on: EA for dumb people?
Pre-Warning: Please don’t read any of this as a criticism of those people who fit into the super-intelligent, hard degrees at Oxford etc. If you’re that person, you’re awesome, not critical of you, and this comment is directed at exploring the strengths of other paths :)

Tl;dr at bottom of post for the time-constrained :)

This was a really interesting post to read. I wrote a slightly controversial piece a little while back that highlighted that ‘top’ Universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford have a lot of class and wealth restrictions so that instead of marketing to the ‘most intelligent’ in society, EA was frequently marketing to the ‘intelligent, but wealthy’ instead—and missing out most of the intelligent but economically stranded people who went to universities lower down on the rankings because it made more financial sense. It ended up spreading on Twitter a bit. Most people were interested and engaged, one or two got a bit angry (largely by misinterpreting what I said but that’s likely on me as the writer, hence the pre-warning), that’s life. But I would like to highlight that to you—I know a ton of really, really intelligent people who went to average universities. In fact of the five smartest and most impactful people I know, only 1 went to an elite-tier uni. So don’t feel bad for going to a ‘normal’ uni. Loads of us did. And we’re doing great.
As for being smart, I think it’s easy to forget that science, law, engineering etc aren’t just labwork/fieldwork. I’ve seen loads of people who are fantastic in labs and in research who produce really excellent research which doesn’t go anywhere. Why? Because that’s stage 1. Research results need highlighted, need shown to people who can take action, and need put into practice in order to be impactful. This can sometimes happen by accident, but science communications (and communications in general) are actually really complex. In short, a lot of the time these ‘super intelligent’ people you’re intimidated by are actually like Narrow AI—fantastic at one thing, but fall apart elsewhere. This is why research frequently requires teams. Chances are by virtue of your own life path you might be fantastic at helping these researchers translate their research to be understood, and maybe great at getting it to where it needs to be. Research is a long process.
An advantage you have of your ‘normal’ life is that you will have learned a lot of skills others might not have. This isn’t dunking on people from other walks of life—they are as blameless for their life lottery as we are, but what I’m saying is that each person’s journey has taught them different skills.
An example from my own story entering EA is that I used to feel similar to you. I grew up on council estates to a completely non-academic family, many of my immediate family went into petty crime, and when I entered academia I felt like an outsider. I actually only started uni at 24 years old because I always felt that uni wasn’t for people like me—until I got a menial job in a STEM field and the scientists there told me otherwise. I actually met my EA group co-founder here and he was the same as me, both of us with very visible tattoos and strong regional accents standing out quite a bit among our peers. Often treated as stupid, or lesser, via a lot of (what is now called) microaggressions. Lots of doors slammed in faces. This was sometimes the same feeling in EA, but to a much lesser extent since the community is very welcoming. Seriously, the community here is lovely and all of the social/class barriers it faces are accidental and they try really hard to correct them. At least in my experience. But humans gonna hume.
When I notice the difference of background personally is in little things like spending money. In my EA group I’ll negotiate almost every transaction to scrape (sometimes literally) pennies in savings because that’s how I grew up, whereas I’ve noticed that a lot of the time other EA group leaders will just pay full price for stuff. That always blows me away. Like they’ll contact a company, ask for a price, then just…pay it. That brings tears to my eyes! But a lot of people have lived their whole life not having to scrape pennies so they don’t even know it’s possible to do this. So this odd little thing in my past that makes me different to a lot of EAs I meet actually helps the EA community by saving money for redeployment. I found a way to make my difference/insecurity my strength.
As an example I just got £800 in funding to buy 40 things at £20 each for my group, but instead of ordering online I contacted the company and negotiated a bulk order discount with their sales department, which meant that some money could go back to EA and be better deployed elsewhere. It’s a small example, but it shows that nothing occurs in isolation and there are a lot of valuable skills in EA. I often joke that EA funds could triple their impact by forgetting financial advisors and putting someone on Universal Credit in charge of their money! Emphasis on joke :) But it shows that just because you’re not in the position or desire to be applying to research fellowships that EA isn’t for you. You might be a wizard at events organising, grant applications, etc.
Another thing you need to bear in mind, which links back to what I said about teams, is that a lot of this debate/research on forums is both hyper-specialised and theoretical. You’re not going to understand an extremely niche computer science conversation, or ethics conversation, and it’s unlikely that anyone on the forums understands everything. This is not your fault, and it’s actually one of EA communities other (very few) flaws. Their public comms is pretty bad. They have real difficulties interpreting their ideas, theories, and research into something that is understandable and digestible. EA orgs are generally much better at it than forum posters, but it’s still an issue. That’s not on you, that’s a research skill that’s learned over time but that people in very theoretical and isolated environments tend not to learn it. I actually worked as a science communicator once where my job was to translate STEM research into something the public could understand. It’s harder than you think, and something I think should be offered as a training course to EA researchers and groups. Good idea for any EA course-makers out there!
Granted, as you said sometimes these debates need complexity because the ideas are complex. That’s fair, and often very necessary. But if you don’t understand a post directed at the whole community it’s not because you’re dumb, it’s because the poster doesn’t understand how to present research to an interdisciplinary audience. I was the same until I worked that job, and even now I work in the legal field surrounding AI so I constantly struggle to explain law concepts to software engineers and software engineering concepts to lawyers. It’s tough, and to be honest I struggle to understand really complex ideas from both sometimes. At least once a week I send a STEM or law paper to a colleague and ask them to explain it like I’m a 5 year old. There’s no shame in it, because they do the same to me!
As a final reminder—though 99% of the EA community are great, there are inevitably (like in all human communities) that 1% who think they are far more intelligent than average, and wondergods in their field, and that EA is for people like them and not their underlings. I haven’t met one in real-life yet, but I’ve seen one or two in comments sections over the years. Bear in mind that 1) They’re often very wrong about that and lack self-awareness, and 2) I currently cooperate with a lot of government bodies in deciding policy relating to AI and those types of people have their research cast aside a lot of the time due to a lack of social skills, a misunderstanding of policy norms, and a lack of experience outside of their field. If you ever bump into someone like that, who tells you that their impact is greater than yours, don’t listen. Because they’re probably in for a big shock when they find out how much teamwork is required to reach the impact finish line and how hard it is to build a team with that attitude!

On that note, don’t put yourself down as a sociologist. I just co-published a paper in the AI field and 2 of the authors are sociologists. Sociology is vital in areas such as governance and policy across AI, animal welfare, poverty, etc. Don’t put your field down because it doesn’t have graphs and algebra. Your field is what turns those things into actual, measurable actions that can work. There’s also no such thing as an ‘easy’ degree.

TL;DR

You’re not dumb at all, sometimes EA is just poor at public/interdisciplinary communication both externally and internally. Additionally, social barriers which EA struggles with sometimes can cause accidental alienation but rest assured you’re not alone, in fact everyone in this community probably feels like that sometimes. We deal with extremely difficult concepts across literally dozens of disciplines in areas of knowledge we’re only beginning to explore. Anyone who is thinking ‘wtf is going on’ at least once or twice a day isn’t paying attention. You’ll meet the odd person who likes to show how much smarter they are than everyone else, but no-one wants to work with them and their careers end up dying.

Please feel free, and this counts for anyone reading this as well as OP, to reach out to me on the forums or via email if you ever feel like this. I’m always happy to chat with other EA members, as someone who has faced these feelings before, and will happily do what I can to open doors for you. :)

Algo_Law Jul 13, 2022, 7:26 AM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: sabrinac’s comment on: How I Recommend University Groups Approach the Funding Situation
Thank you for such an informative and well-thought-out reply. I appreciate you taking the time :)

I think you raise some good points here, and yes I have personally found getting access to money much easier than with most other orgs. I still do think that there may be an unintentional chilling effect on people from rent-seeker discourse, but I think we can both agree with @Levin that perhaps using a different term related to good and bad faith may be a good avenue to pursue.

All in all I think you do raise really good points both in the original post and in this reply, but do also think it’s worth being mindful, as always, of unintended consequences :)

Algo_Law Jul 5, 2022, 3:45 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: tlevin’s comment on: How I Recommend University Groups Approach the Funding Situation
That’s a good point, about community organisers being kind of a filter. I like to think I’d know if someone was looking to extract profit. To be honest we usually have the other problem. I’ve heard a few times before from people they ‘dont want to take the p*ss’ and I have to convince them it’s alright to stay at a 2 star instead of a 1 star! I think the groups function well because it’s (in theory for me, never happened yet) possible to tell when someone’s shifty. So I agree with that point.

I do still think though that too much focus on the discourse risks socioeconomic exclusion. I know people don’t intend it this way, but sometimes the discourse can come off quite elitist in writing when worded incorrectly. It’s a risk. But at the same time I would hate to chill someone’s free speech, and valid concerns. Communities are always a delicate balancing act! Difficult to get right.

Algo_Law Jul 5, 2022, 12:15 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Nathan Young’s comment on: How I Recommend University Groups Approach the Funding Situation
That’s an interesting tie-in to the ‘burnout’ discourse we’ve been seeing lately that I had not even considered.

Algo_Law Jul 5, 2022, 11:54 AM
21 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Kirsten’s comment on: How I Recommend University Groups Approach the Funding Situation
It’s something I would be willing to write if others wanted to read it, unless the original poster would rather do it.

Algo_Law Jul 5, 2022, 11:52 AM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Algo_Law’s comment on: How I Recommend University Groups Approach the Funding Situation
I’m actually going to reply to my own comment here with the cardinal sin of thinking of another point after hitting ‘post’, but not wanting to disrupt the flow of the original comment!

I believe there IS a case to be made for teaching organisers how to better spend funds smartly. I have been to larger EA events before where I’ve thought to myself ‘this could have been done at half the price’. Maybe it’s the fact I grew up in an environment where you had to make every penny stretch as far as possible, but it blew me away when another group leader mentioned to me they don’t negotiate costs with vendors! Like haggle on price for room fees, food etc. Some find it distasteful, and I get that, but a lot could be saved.

Also, some events can be unnecessarily ostentatious. Like do we really need a room with this much gold and antique clocks? You could have rented a soviet-style office room at half the price like 2 miles away.

Then again, it’s very easy for me to criticise others given my near-zero large-scale event planning experience. Maybe there are other factors I’m not considering. That said, maybe give group leaders some books on negotiation or on frugality tips. That may help a range of the issues highlighted in this post.

Algo_Law Jul 5, 2022, 11:40 AM
78 points
0 ∶ 0
on: How I Recommend University Groups Approach the Funding Situation
I think this is a good guide, and thank you for writing it. I found the bit on how to phrase event advertising particularly helpful.

One thing I would like to elaborate on is the ‘rent-seekers’ bit. I’m going to say something that disagrees with a lot of the other comments here. I think we need to be careful about how we approach such ‘rent-seeking’ conversations. This isn’t a criticism of what you wrote, as you explained it really well, but more of a trend I’ve noticed recently in EA discourse and this is a good opportunity to mention it.

It’s important to highlight that not all groups are equal, demographically. I co-lead a group in a city where the child poverty rate has gone from 24% to a whopping 42% in 5 years, and remains one of the poorest cities in the UK. I volunteer my time at a food bank and can tell you that it’s never been under stronger demand. Simply put, things are tough here. One of the things I am proudest about in our EA group is we’ve done a load of outreach to people who face extra barriers to participating in academia and research, and as a result have a group with a great range of life backgrounds. I’m sure it’s not the only EA group to achieve this, because I’ve spoken to other group leads who have made an effort to achieve the same effect.

We’ve adapted our strategies and events a bit to enable this—eg. pre-buying public transport tickets for people to attend our events, or wage replacement where if they attend a day-long event, we’ll pay a micro-stipend equivalent of a 10 or 12 hour shift of minimum wage (though this is rare as we’re careful about when we arrange stuff). This was because some people literally couldn’t afford a day off to attend conferences, or present their research, because that lost day had significant consequences for them. As a result, we’ve had some fantastic things come from people who otherwise would not have had the opportunity to contribute their valuable ideas and work.

My point is that a lack of funding is an extremely real barrier to many people’s participation not just in EA, but in academia/research in general. I understand that there is a very real risk of people using EA events as a ‘free holiday’ type deal, and it’s something that bears mitigating, but we also have to be really careful about unfairly tarring people who rely on full funding to attend events. I fully expect to encourage as many members of my group as possible to attend the conferences because they have lots to gain and lots to contribute. I understand the ‘rent-seeking’ fear is that people will use EA conferences to pursue jobs or grant funding for projects, but I don’t think this is as high a risk as people say because those are EA-aligned jobs and grants, and those organisations have their own safeguards. They can see through false interest fairly easily. As for reducing the quality of conferences, I’m not sure how you could reliably tell the difference between a ‘rent-seeker’ and someone who just doesn’t know EA in-depth yet, or who is nervous.

Essentially, it boils down to the fact that in some groups only a few people may be suitable to attend the conferences as in your example. However, there are contextual and geographical factors at play which means that some groups may make more applications than others, and it may not necessarily be a ‘rent-seekers’ issue. Some groups may just need more help for more people. As a result, higher numbers of people from x group over y group isn’t necessarily an indication of ‘rent-seeking’.

I’m always extremely apprehensive about any ‘rent-seekers’ discourse because it seems to follow a similar trend as to class warfare in mainstream media. For example, the demonisation of people on benefits despite that fact that benefits fraud makes up a microscopic rate of overall fraud. The idea of someone taking advantage of the group (whether that’s society or an organisation etc) is often overinflated compared to its actual risk. I would be very interested to see any confirmed examples of rent-seeking to try and gauge how big the current threat is. I assume the grant-makers check the hotels people are claiming for (not 5-star etc) and length of stay (not booking 8 days for a 2-day event). You also sign in to events via a QR code, so checking that people actually went to the event is fairly easy. I assume EA can also access people’s agendas, to a degree, and are able to see if people are actively engaging with others. These various safeguards should make this issue quite trackable. If it’s a matter of engaging in good faith, that’s so immensely hard to measure I’m not even sure it’s possible.

A final bit I would like to expand on is this:

”I’ve seen cases where people seem more motivated by the free flight than the conference itself”

There is also a risk of mistaking excitement for motivation. For many people, an EA conference will be the first time they’ve travelled away to another country (or even city), and so lots of excitement surrounding the actual trip is normal. My first ever EAG London was my first time travelling to my own nation’s capital. You can bet I had a walk around the tourist sites after my agenda for the day was finished. And that’s okay. I understand there’s a concern of people doing it just for the flight, travel, hotel, whatever—but the amount of safeguards would (I assume) prevent this from being the case.

You make really good points, and I think the ‘rent-seekers’ risk bears watching to see if it becomes a genuine threat, but I am concerned about it becoming an increasing part of EA discourse and if we’re not careful it could drive away otherwise great contributors because of entrenched social and class issues. EA already has intellectual diversity issues, and we need to be careful about exacerbating rather than fixing these. I also understand that ‘rent-seeker’ in no way is intended to mean ‘low economic background’ - however, my point is that many of the ‘rent-seeker’ red flags listed here and elsewhere could also be signs of someone overcoming class and social barriers and so there’s a risk of mistakenly alienating people from certain backgrounds over others.
Again—I 100% know this isn’t what you meant and this was a really helpful guide, but I’m commenting more on the general discourse trend I’m noticing on the forum, on the Twitter group, and in some blogs. I am concerned that the fears of rent-seekers could be overblown compared to the real proportion of the risk, and would be interested to see some evidence-based research in this area.

Algo_Law Jul 5, 2022, 10:51 AM
6 points
2 ∶ 2
in reply to: mic’s comment on: My Most Likely Reason to Die Young is AI X-Risk
I face enormous challenges convincing people of this. Many people don’t see, for example, widespread AI-empowered human rights infringements as an ‘existential catastrophe’ because it doesn’t directly kill people, and as a result it falls between the cracks of AI safety definitions—despite being a far more plausable threat than AGI considering it’s already happening. Severe curtailments to humanity’s potential still firmly count as an existential risk in my opinion.
What links here?
- Guy Raveh's comment on My Most Likely Reason to Die Young is AI X-Risk by AISafetyIsNotLongtermist (Jul 5, 2022, 10:21 PM; 3 points)

Algo_Law Jun 23, 2022, 6:54 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Shakked Noy’s comment on: Half-baked ideas thread (EA / AI Safety)
Awesome, thanks for the link! :)

Algo_Law Jun 23, 2022, 6:26 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Half-baked ideas thread (EA / AI Safety)
I’ve often thought about the idea of paying automated, narrow-AI systems such as warehouse bots or factory robots a wage even though they’re not sentient or anything would help with many of the issues ahead of us with increased general automation. As employment goes down (less tax money) and unemployment (voluntary or otherwise) and therefore social welfare goes up, it creates a considerable strain. Paying automated systems a ‘wage’ which can then be taxed might help alleviate that. It wouldn’t be a wage, obviously, more like an ongoing fee for using such systems to be paid towards the cost of caring for humans. Bonus if that money actually goes into a big pot which helps reimburse people who suffer harm from automated systems. Might be a good stop-gap until our economy adjusts correctly, as tax revenue wouldn’t dip as far.

Obviously this is MASSIVE spitball territory, not an idea I’ve thought about seriously because I literally don’t have the time, but could be an interesting idea. First step would be to check if automation is actually resulting in employment going down, because not sure there’s evidence of that yet.

Algo_Law May 7, 2022, 10:42 PM
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: frances_lorenz’s comment on: Is EA “just longtermism” now?
“There’s some vague sense that current-day concerns (like algorithmic bias) are not really AI Safety research. Although I’ve talked to some who think addressing these issues first is key in building towards alignment.
Now don’t go setting me off about this topic! You know what I’m like. Suffice to say I think combatting social issues like algorithmic bias are potentially the only way to realistically begin the alignment process. Build transparency etc. But that’s a conversation for another post :D

Algo_Law May 3, 2022, 5:29 PM
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Is EA “just longtermism” now?
Frances, your posts are always so well laid out with just the right amount of ease-of-reading colloquialism and depth of detail. You must teach me this dark art at some point!

As for the content of the post itself, it’s funny that recently the two big criticisms of longermism in EA are that EA is too longtermist and that EA isn’t longtermist enough! I’ve always thought that means it’s about right, haha. You can’t keep everyone happy all of the time.

I’m one of those people you mention who only really interacts with the longtermist side of EA because it meshes well with my area of expertise, but to be honest I feel it’s about right at present. If EA were to become all-longtermist I think it would be a bit of an over-correction and we need other philosophies too in order to keep a broad palette, but if it did happen and if there was good reason for it—I’d get over it.

In regards to:
I personally disagree with this. As a counter-argument:
Longtermism, as a worldview, does not want present day people to suffer; instead, it wants to work towards a future with as little suffering as possible, for everyone.

My one criticism of current longtermist thought is that sometimes people excluse short-term actions because it’s not ‘longtermist enough’ , eg. creating fertile ground for positive future actions, but this is potentially just in my sphere and isn’t representative of the greater philosophy. I just know from conversations I’ve had that some people are of the opinion that it’s the ‘big win in 50 years time’ or nothing at all, and don’t like the idea of positive short-term baby steps towards aligning a longterm future. However, the literature is fine with this and it seems to just be some people who aren’t, so perhaps it’s the company I keep :) You’re right though in that the worldview itself addresses this.

Great post!

Algo_Law May 3, 2022, 5:15 PM
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: EA frontpages should compare/contrast with other movements
No problem!

Absolutely, I can see what you mean. Personal lens counts for a lot and people can run away with ideas of badness. Things are rarely as bad as people criticise them for being, and EA is no different. Yeah it has a few issues here and there but the media and Twitter can often make these issues look far, far worse than they actually are. I can totally see where you’re coming from.

Algo_Law May 2, 2022, 2:39 PM
11 points
0 ∶ 0
on: EA frontpages should compare/contrast with other movements
I think this idea bears some merit in itself, but it would be a lot more complex in practice I think. Some other replies have covered that and I have nothing useful to add, so I won’t. One thing I would say is that we have to acknowledge that some of the criticism you list is pretty genuine. We aren’t a perfect community and this does impact our activities. Some examples from what Timnit et al discussed on Twitter:

‘EA and longtermism are claimed to be divorced from the lived experience of common people’
The majority of EA’s base is in the world’s ‘elite’ academic centres. This is for obvious reasons in that it is the best bang-for-buck place to find reliable quality of academic talent. However, it also means that EA generally picks from the most priviliged among society. For example a 2014 Cherwell report (bit dated, but relevant) found that the national average of students having to work while they study to support themselves is 57%, 90% of whom work 20+ hours per week. At Oxford University, only 20% of students work and ‘the majority’ according to the report work under 5 hours per week. This is because the students there are generally from much wealthier backgrounds, so fewer are forced to find part-time employment to fund themselves. This may also be due to other factors, such as a lack of work nearby (eg Oxford isn’t a huge city), but this is unlikely to be the main factor. Also, most EA orgs are based in the most expensive places in the UK (London, Oxford, Cambridge) which means that people with more financial runway can afford to take more opportunities. Is this a bad thing? Not in itself. But it does mean that EA’s membership demographic may not reflect the demographic makeup of society at large. It’s a genuine criticism. To be fair, the EA community does try hard to correct this, but it’s just looking at things as they are. When Timnu makes this point, she doesn’t make it baselessly.
EA and longtermism are claimed to follow colonialist lines of thought
An example of this is that influential EA members have in the past published pieces that to the general public are pretty horrifying, and I can’t for the life of me think why people are surprised at backlash. People are like “omg we’re being dragged publicly on Twitter” and you read the Tweet sources and you’re like “well...yeah”.
For example, posing the idea that some humans are more valuable than others. Hot takes like “Hey, maybe disabled people don’t have the same right to be alive as non-disabled people because they’re less useful” are going to generate some aggro. And in my opinion rightly so. Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, but the community has to accept the blowback from that policy.
I’ve often thought that EA’s lack of centralised reaction to things like this has been a bit of an issue. Like when there were protests against EA regarding some views the public found objectionable, EA just kind of ignored it. But the media didn’t. Then again, creating some kind of EA PR dept could be seen as having something to hide, and EA has always liked a full transparency policy.

You’re right in that it would be useful to say up front “Hey, we’re not perfect, here’s the values we believe in but not all members agree and that’s okay”. But what are those values, and who decides? And would such an intro provide a cooling effect to philosophical thought? Or would it help, considering it matters just as much what people perceive your community to be as it does what your community actually is?

This was a good post, and raises good questions, I apologise if my answer/input isn’t helpful. It’s a good issue to raise because if it ever reaches the point where calling yourself a Longtermist or whatever is career suicide, the philosophy dies—for reasons entirely unrelated to the philosophy itself. It’s worth considering.

Algo_Law Apr 29, 2022, 9:02 AM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Mau’s comment on: The Case for Non-Technical AI Safety/Alignment Growth & Funding
That’s a very good point. I still feel there could be more contests, grants, orgs etc in this area but you’re right in that there’s resources there and there’s some serious knowledge at those orgs. Perhaps talent, not funding, is main bottleneck we need to address. They two may be interrelated to an extent.

It’s really frustrating to see so much governance talent at law conferences but very little within EA working on Longtermist issues. I think it’s a mixture of a lack of outreach in those industries and the fact EA’s reputation has taken a couple of dings in the public media lately. People in those industries are very sensitive to PR risk, understandably.

I’ve been seriously considering writing a longtermist book for the legal and governance sector lately, just to get the conversation on the table, but it’s something one can’t rush into.

Thanks for pointing out that post to be. It’s a great read :) Appreciate it!

Algo_Law Apr 28, 2022, 10:37 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Michael_Wiebe’s comment on: The Case for Non-Technical AI Safety/Alignment Growth & Funding
A whole range of things, from elements on the ‘fancy spreadsheet’ side such as recidivism and predpol to the more complex elements surrounding evidential aspects. I am aware none of these are close to AGI, considering no current AI is given its hyper-specialism, but the point of that paragraph isn’t about the AI but how humans and organisations have been shown to use AI (or automation software, if you’re more comfortable with that phrase). When the first actual AGI is developed, it is likely to be in a very well-funded lab—a lab likely under control of an organisation who are no exception to the usual weaknesses of capitalistic behaviour. After all, the entire point of developing general intelligence for many people isn’t for scientific endeavour but for commercial reasons.

Maybe humanity has 1 AGI or 1 ASI, but if we end up with dozens or hundreds of systems, we can’t rely on people to do the ‘right thing’ to prevent misalignment problems. There needs to be an actual system of governance ready to keep them in check, so it’s not just a technical problem.

Let me know if that clarified at all.