Currently doing local AI safety Movement Building in Australia and NZ.
Chris Leong
Karma: 7,550
Oh, I think AI safety is very important; short-term AI safety too though not quite 2027 😂.
Knock-off MATS could produce a good amount of value, I just want the EA hotel to be even more ambitious.
Should our EA residential program prioritize structured programming or open-ended residencies?
There’s more information value in exploring structured programming.
That said, I’d be wary duplicating existing programs; ie. if the AI Safety Fellowship became a knock-off MATS.
What the School of Moral Ambition has achieved is impressive, but it’s unclear whether EA should aim for mainstream appeal insofar as SoMA could potentially fill that niche.
”~70% male and ~75% white” — I’m increasingly feel that the way to be cool is to not be so self-conscious about this kind of stuff. Would it be great to have more women on our team? Of course! And for EA to be more global? Again, that’d be great! But talking about your demographics like it’s a failure will never be cool. Instead EA should just back itself. Are our demographics ideal? No. But if circumstances are such that we need to get the job done with these demographics, then we’ll get the job done with these demographics. And honestly, the less you need people, the more likely they are to feel drawn to you, at least in my experience.“Please, for God’s sake, hire non-EA creative talent” — I suspect this is very circumstantial. There are circumstances where you’ll be able to delegate to non-EA creative talent and it’ll work fine, but there will be other circumstances where you try this and you find that they just keep distorting the message. It’s harder than you might think.
I agree re: 4 though. The expectations re: caveats depend heavily on the context of the post.
An analogy: let’s suppose you’re trying to stop a tank. You can’t just place a line of 6 kids in front of it and call it “defense in depth”.
Also, it would be somewhat weird to call it “defense in depth” if most of the protection came from a few layers.
Feel reply to this comment with any suggestions about other graphs that I should consider including.
Create nice zones for spontaneous conversations (not sure how to do this well)
I’ve tried pushing for this without much success unfortunately.
It really is a lot more effort to have spontaneous conversations when almost all pairs are a one-on-one and almost all people by themselves are waiting for a one-on-one.
I’ve seen attempts to declare a space an area that’s not for one-on-ones, but people have one-on-ones there anyway. Then again, organisers normally put up one or two small signs.
Honestly, the only way to stop people having one-on-ones in the area for spontaneous conversation might be to have an absurd number of big and obvious signs.
For most fellowships you’re applying to a mentor rather than pursuing your own project (ERA is an exception). And, on the most common fellowships of a few months it’s pretty much go, go, go, with little time to explore.
Thanks for the detailed comments.
Maybe the only way to really push for x-safety is with If Anyone Builds It style “you too should believe in and seek to stop the impending singularity” outreach. That just feels like such a tough sell even if people would believe in the x-safety conditional on believing in the singularity. Agh. I’m conflicted here. No idea.
I wish I had more strategic clarity here.
I believe there was a recent UN general assembly where world leaders were literally asking around for, like, ideas for AI red lines.
I would be surprised if anything serious comes sout of this immediately, but I really like this framing because it normalises the idea that we should have red lines.
I agree that EA might be somewhat “intellectually adrift”, and yes the forum could be more vibrant, but I don’t think these are the only metric for EA success or progress—and maybe not even the most important.
The EA movement attracted a bunch of talent by being intellectually vibrant. If I thought that the EA movement was no longer intellectually vibrant, but it was attracting a different kind of talent (such as the doers you mention) instead, this would be less of a concern, but I don’t think that’s the case.
(To be clear, I’m talking about the EA movement, as opposed to EA orgs. So even if EA orgs are doing a great job at finding doers, the EA movement might still be in a bad place if it isn’t contributing significantly to this).1. Rutger Bregman going viral with “The school for Moral ambition” launch
2. Lewis Bollard’s Dwarkesh podcast, Ted talk and public fundraising.
3. Anthropic at the frontier of AI building and public sphere, with ongoing EA influence
4. The shrimp Daily show thing…
5. GiveWell raised $310 million dollars last year NOT from OpenPhil, the most ever.
6. Impressive progress on reducing factory farming
7. 80,000 hours AI video reaching 7 million views
8. Lead stuff
9. CE incubated charities gaining increasing prominence and funding outside of EA, with many sporting multi-million dollar budgets and producing huge impact
10. Everyone should have a number 10....
These really are some notable successes, but one way to lose is to succeed at lots of small things, whilst failing to succeed at the most important things.
Once people have built career capital in AI/Animal welfare/ETG or whatever, I think we should be cautious about encouraging those people on to the next thing too quickly
You mostly only see the successes, but in practise this seems to be less of an issue I initially would have thought.
Very excited to read this post. I strongly agree with both the concrete direction and with the importance of making EA more intellectually vibrant.
Then again, I’m rather biased since I made a similar argument a few years back.
Main differences:
I suggested that it might make sense for virtual programs to create a new course rather than just changing the intro fellowship content. My current intuition is that splitting the intro fellowship would likely be the best option for now. Some people will get really annoyed if the course focuses too much on AI, whilst others will get annoyed if the course focuses too much on questions that would likely become redundant in a world where we expect capability advances to continue. My intuition is that things aren’t at the stage where it’d make sense for the intro fellowship to do a complete AGI pivot, so that’s why I’m suggesting a split. Both courses should probably still give participants a taste of the other.
I put more emphasis on the possibility that AI might be useful for addressing global poverty and that it intersects with animal rights, whilst perhaps Will might see this as too incrementalist (?).
Whilst I also suggested that putting more emphasis on the implications of advanced AI might make EA less intellectually stagnant, I also noted that perhaps it’d be better for EA to adopt a yearly theme and simply make the rise of AI the first. I still like the yearly theme idea, but the odds and legibility of AI being really important have increased enough that I’m now feeling a lot more confident as identifying AI as an area that deserves more than just a yearly theme.
I also agree with the “fuck PR” stance (my words, not Will’s). Especially insofar as the AIS movement has greater pressure to focus on PR, since it’s further towards the pointy end, I think it’s important for the EA movement to use its freedom to provide a counter-balance to this.
Really excited to see this released! Seems very helpful for folks trying to explore the intersection of these spaces.
Honestly, I don’t care enough to post any further replies. I’ve spent too much time on this whole Epoch thing already (not just through this post, but through other comments). I’ve been reflecting recently on how I spend my time and I’ve realised that I often make poor decisions here. I’ve shared my opinion, if your opinion is different, that’s perfectly fine, but I’m out.
It can be a mistake to have trusted someone without there necessarily having been misbehavior. I’m not saying there wasn’t misbehavior, that’s just not my focus here.
Trust has never been just about whether someone technically lied.
I find that surprising.
The latest iteration has 80+ projects
But why do you say that?
I can’t see an option to delete.
I took a look at the post announcing Epoch.
It was interesting noting this comment by Ofer:
Jaime Sevilla replied:
Additionally, looking at the post itself:
It’s up to the reader to form their own judgement, but it certainly seems to me that the AI Safety community was too ready to trust Epoch.
People seem to think that there is an ‘EA Orthodoxy’ on this stuff
Well, there kind of is. Maybe you think it’s incorrect, but that’s a separate matter.
I am far more concerned of “geniuses in a data center” which Dario/Sam seem to be pushing for, than I am of more economically useful AI
I’d be curious to hear your views now that we know they’re focusing on improving RL environments which seems useful for the former and not just that latter.
Sure, but these orgs found their own niche.
HIP and Successif focuse more on mid-career professionals.
Probably Good focusing on a broader set of cause areas; and taking some of the old responsibilities of 80k when it started focusing on more on transformative AI.