Katja_Grace

FAQ: Ex­pert Sur­vey on Progress in AI methodology

• Katja_Grace 30 Jul 2025 17:33 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: AI Re­searcher Sur­veys with Similar Re­sults to Katja Grace, 2024?

  Our 2024 survey results should be out soon.

Ten ar­gu­ments that AI is an ex­is­ten­tial risk

Par­tial value takeover with­out world takeover

• Katja_Grace 6 Jan 2024 18:48 UTC

  24 points

  4 ∶ 1

  in reply to: lilly’s comment on: Sur­vey of 2,778 AI au­thors: six parts in pictures

  many AI researchers just don’t seem too concerned about the risks posed by AI, so may not have opened the survey

  Note that we didn’t tell them the topic that specifically.

  I am wondering whether a better approach would instead be to randomly sample a subset of potential respondents (say, 4,000 people), and offer to compensate them at a much higher rate (e.g., $100)..

  Tried sending them $100 last year and if anything it lowered the response rate.

  If you are inclined to dismiss this based on your premise “many AI researchers just don’t seem too concerned about the risks posed by AI”, I’m curious where you get that view from, and why you think it is a less biased source.

Sur­vey of 2,778 AI au­thors: six parts in pictures

• Katja_Grace 22 Oct 2023 0:15 UTC

  12 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: An­nounc­ing Rob Gled­hill as the new CEO of EV UK

  Thank you both for your past and future work on EV, and best wishes to both of you in your new roles. Really looking forward to seeing you more in the geographic vicinity of Open Phil!

• Katja_Grace 18 Sep 2023 22:55 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Nathan Young’s comment on: De­bate se­ries: should we push for a pause on the de­vel­op­ment of AI?

  Longer/​ongoing list here.

Will AI end ev­ery­thing? A guide to guess­ing | EAG Bay Area 23

• Katja_Grace 19 Mar 2023 8:56 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Ian Turner’s comment on: How bad a fu­ture do ML re­searchers ex­pect?

  Possible, but likely a smaller effect than you might think because: a) I was very ambiguous about the subject matter until they were taking the survey (e.g. did not mention AGI or risk or timelines) b) Last time (for the 2016 survey) we checked the demographics of respondents against those for a random subset of non-respondents, and they weren’t very different.

  Participants were also mostly offered substantial payment for taking the survey ($50 usually, for a ~15m survey), in part in the hope of making payment a larger motivator than desire to express some particular view, but I don’t think payment actually made a large difference to the response rate, so probably failed have the desired effect on possible response bias.

How bad a fu­ture do ML re­searchers ex­pect?

We don’t trade with ants

Let’s think about slow­ing down AI

Coun­ter­ar­gu­ments to the ba­sic AI risk case

LW4EA: A game of mattering

Beyond fire alarms: free­ing the groupstruck

Do in­co­her­ent en­tities have stronger rea­son to be­come more co­her­ent than less?

Co­her­ence ar­gu­ments im­ply a force for goal-di­rected behavior

• Katja_Grace 9 Mar 2021 18:42 UTC

  43 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Why Hasn’t Effec­tive Altru­ism Grown Since 2015?

  I respond here: https://​​worldspiritsockpuppet.com/​​2021/​​03/​​09/​​why-does-ads-think-ea-hasnt-grown.html

• Katja_Grace 2 Mar 2021 22:08 UTC

  12 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Why I’m con­cerned about Giv­ing Green

  >I would be very excited to see research by Giving Green into whether their approach of recommending charities which are, by their own analysis, much less cost effective than the best options is indeed justified.

  Several confusions I have:

  • When did they say these were much less cost-effective? I thought they just failed to analyze cost effectiveness? (Which is also troubling, but different from what you are saying, so I’m confused)

  • What do you mean by it being justified? It looks like you mean ‘does well on a comparison of immediate impact’, but, supposing these things are likely to be interpreted as recommendations about what is most cost-effective, this approach sounds close to outright dishonesty, which seems like it would still not be justified. (I’m not sure to what extent they are presenting them that way.)

  • Do they explicitly say that this is their approach?