gergo

• gergoFeb 17, 2025, 3:38 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: What new x- or s-risk field­build­ing or­gani­sa­tions would you like to see? An EOI form. (FBB #3)

  Thanks for sharing, I haven’t come across them before!

AIS Ber­lin, events, op­por­tu­ni­ties and the flipped game­board—Field­builders Newslet­ter, Fe­bru­ary 2025

• gergoFeb 17, 2025, 1:14 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: EA North is hap­pen­ing in Sheffield on Satur­day 26 April

  What’s the deadline to apply? :)

What new x- or s-risk field­build­ing or­gani­sa­tions would you like to see? An EOI form. (FBB #3)

• gergoFeb 13, 2025, 3:20 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: harfe’s comment on: Ideas EAIF is ex­cited to re­ceive ap­pli­ca­tions for

  awesome, thanks for flagging this as I would have missed it!

• gergoFeb 13, 2025, 10:21 AM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jamie_Harris’s comment on: Ideas EAIF is ex­cited to re­ceive ap­pli­ca­tions for

  Hey! Just wanted to double-check if this is still the case (as it is still on the website), considering that you will be getting a lot of applications for LTFF that would probably want funding for a longer period!

AI Safety Col­lab 2025 - Lo­cal Or­ga­nizer Sign-ups Open

• gergoJan 29, 2025, 9:41 AM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Eli Rose’s comment on: Why AI Safety Camp strug­gles with fundrais­ing (FBB #2)

  Hey! Thanks, this is really useful input! :) I will update this bit of the text and link to your comment

• gergoJan 22, 2025, 9:21 AM

  6 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Chris Leong’s comment on: Why AI Safety Camp strug­gles with fundrais­ing (FBB #2)

  Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Chris, I think you made some great additional suggestions. I also agree that that AISC shouldn’t try to compete with on the prestige front too much, and they complement each other nicely with SPAR that takes a more top-down approach and only(?) hosts established researches as leads.

Why AI Safety Camp strug­gles with fundrais­ing (FBB #2)

• gergoJan 17, 2025, 12:27 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: GV 🔸’s comment on: In­tro­duc­ing The Field Build­ing Blog (FBB #0)

  I’m definitely post my writings on the forum! (one can just cross-post from substack)

  It seems to me that for your topics, there are much stronger reasons to stay on the forum than for leaving it: I suppose you’ll get more readers; it will be more convenient for said readers; there’s a good comments system; the audio transcription; there are previous of within-forum links; and probably other important things I’m forgetting.

  (super interested to hear what was in favor of Substack! :) )

• gergoJan 17, 2025, 12:26 PM

  1 point

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: GV 🔸’s comment on: In­tro­duc­ing The Field Build­ing Blog (FBB #0)

  hey! Sorry, I missed this until now.

  Quick question: why not write on the EA Forum?

  Thanks for this question, I realize it’s worth clarifying what I mean exactly: I think there are a lot of valuable conversations happening that never end up being shared on the forum, even though they should be. I think this is because 1) lack of time 2) small demand (there are not that many fieldbuilders) and 3) and potential authors worrying about how the author is going to be perceived if they share their thoughts without much filtering. (e.g. it is easy to come across as elitist when talking about CB, and it takes a lot of time to explain a nuanced take on these issues)

• gergoJan 17, 2025, 12:14 PM

  6 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: An­nounc­ing a new CEA-sup­ported lo­cal event series

  This is awesome! Also a great stepping stone for groups that eventually want to put on an EAGx.

• gergoJan 16, 2025, 11:17 AM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Adam Jones’s comment on: Your group needs all the help it can get (FBB #1)

  Thanks for expanding on this, Adam!

  Groups want something weird or custom about their courses [...] if they were okay with something standard their members could just take our standard courses.

  I’m not sure I agree with this, as AIS collab has done this kind of coordination before, afaik with relatively universal courses. While they might have a preference for customisation, I think most would be willing to compromise for the benefits they get in return, especially if they weren’t able to put on their own course otherwise. Whether to let groups who participate do in person sessions is something I’m indeed uncertain about though. For groups that feel very strongly about customization, it is better to just run their own version.

  Most group leaders should probably think more carefully about the time trade-offs of getting more things 80% right rather than few things 99% right.

  I agree with this and essentially everything else you have shared in the rest of the comment.

• gergoJan 14, 2025, 8:50 PM

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: The ugly sides of two ap­proaches to charity

  Thanks for sharing this, wonderful writing! Have you thought about sending this to Emma Goldberg? :-)

• gergoJan 11, 2025, 10:09 AM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: yanni kyriacos’s comment on: Start an AIS safety field-build­ing or­ga­ni­za­tion at the city or na­tional level—an EOI form

  It might also be the safest way to “incubate” an AI Safety organisation (for all the Entrepreneurs out there).

  Can you expand on this a bit? Do you mean field-building orgs, or any AIS org in general? :)

• gergoJan 11, 2025, 10:03 AM

  5 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Adam Jones’s comment on: Your group needs all the help it can get (FBB #1)

  Thanks for mentioning all of these! Bluedot has put out so much awesome stuff for the broader fieldbuilding community!

  We tried this before with a few groups, and found that adding a third party to organizing a course (especially for smaller courses) can actually add more work than it saves.

  Could you expand on this a bit more? This is basically the main crux for us to be running this kind of program, or at least for including groups who would otherwise be able to put up their own courses. Can you think of some specific failure modes that we should be mindful of?

In­tro­duc­ing Scal­ing Altru­ism, a course co­or­di­na­tion pro­gram for EA groups

• gergoJan 9, 2025, 4:21 PM

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Fund­ing Case: AI Safety Camp 11

  Someone mentioned to me that the problem they see with AISC is that its scope is way too broad.

  I think it’s great that you can accommodate a lot of different projects, but I would guess this does make it harder for you to make the case for funding.

  Would you consider giving the option to funders to only fund certain types of projects? I could imagine many people wanting to fund technical research, but not advocacy, and vice versa.

• gergoJan 9, 2025, 9:58 AM

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Matthew Goldman’s comment on: AI Safety Col­lab 2025 - Feed­back on Plans & Ex­pres­sion of Interest

  Thank you for asking, I edited to post to make this clearer. This program is intended for AIS fieldbuilders who would like to run courses in the near future, as well as potential course facilitators who would like to help us with this initiative.

  What links here?

  • AI Safety Col­lab 2025 - Lo­cal Or­ga­nizer Sign-ups Open by Evander H. 🔸 (Feb 12, 2025, 11:27 AM; 15 points)