Thinking about AI. Trying to build a Rat, EA, TPOT meetup scene in Asheville, NC
Matt Brooks
Karma: 420
Thanks for commenting!
In my mind, you should just ask for the min funding it would take for you to quit your job. So if you have a research path or project idea, and you need $30k for 6 months to quit your job and make it happen, make that your application and funding ask.
Because if you set your min funding to $30k you will either not get funded or you get the $30k and can quit your job.
Does that make sense? Or did you have something else in mind?
As of right now, there isn’t
But let me check later today to see if it’s easy to expand it, so people can submit multiple proposals from one account
If you or someone you know needs funding to get their AI safety research / career / project / think of the ground, apply for funding through the $1M AI x-risk grant round we just launched on grantmaking.ai
Apply by July 13 to guarantee a review: https://grantmaking.ai/apply/launch
Thanks for sharing your perspective! The unpaid-signalling bottleneck you describe for generalists resonates a lot.
One idea I’m exploring is a lightweight service that connects skilled freelancers to AI safety orgs
If you want to launch a pilot (e.g., paid trial projects, standardized vetting, or a small marketplace/concierge), we’re running a $1M Launch Round for small, early-stage AI-safety bets on grantmaking.ai—I encourage to you apply.
July 13 is the deadline to guarantee a review: https://grantmaking.ai/apply/launch
$1M AI x-risk grant round is live on grantmaking.ai—apply for funding, review applicants, or fund projects
Hey Chris, thanks for commenting!
Do you mean downsides of building this platform at all? Like, making the ecosystem more legible could make it easier for people to help as well as attack?
Or more like “some orgs will not want to be listed in the database for particular reasons”
Because it seems fine that if an individual, org, or project wants to be excluded, we will keep them out.
I think one of the major bottlenecks in AI safety is that we don’t have enough grantmakers to route resources (capital and compute), especially to smaller orgs / projects, so anything that helps that flow could be super high leverage.
I guess potential downsides include:
-
the reviews / signal in the database are low quality or actively harmful in a way that makes it more likely that net negative projects get funding
-
public criticism could harm people and projects (we haven’t yet figured out how we want to handle negative comments / disendorsements. Seems like it could be good signal, but is somewhat risky. Probably pretty easy to set up an AI reviewer for comments, or make them semi-private, only shown to verified funders or something. Not sure yet, this is something we’re going to think more about and maybe test out a few things.
-
incentivizes goodhearting / gaming the platform / popularity contests
These all seem manageable with effort and iteration, though.
Curious what you’re thinking, though!
-
We’re building grantmaking.ai—public funding infrastructure for AI safety
Hey Sophie, great post, I fully agree.
I’m working with a few other people (including a funder) to build the infrastructure that can support new individual donors make smaller, quicker, and more decorrelated AI safety grantmaking bets.
I think it’d be great to chat to see what you’re working towards—I saw this on your profile: “I’m in the early stages of co-founding a donor advisory initiative focused on neglected areas within AI safety, and would appreciate connections with anyone in the grantmaking/fundraising space!”
oh good call out, I’ll ping Niki to make sure he sees this comment
AI discourse analyzed (we looked at essays, Twitter, Bluesky, Truth Social)
whoops, fixed!
Which metric would you use to compare welfare across species?
I don’t think we know enough about consciousness/qualia/etc. to say anything with conviction about what it’s like to be a nematode. And operationally, I don’t think you won’t be able to convince enough people/funders to take real action on soil animals because it’s just too epistemically unsound and doesn’t fit into people’s natural world views.
When I say net negative, I don’t mean if you try to help soil animals you somehow hurt more animals on the whole.
I mean that you will turn people away from the theory of animal suffering because advocating for soil animals will make them think the field/study of animal suffering as a whole is less epistemically sound or even common sense as they previously thought.
I’m going to write a post next week about this, but consider the backlash on twitter regarding Bentham’s Bulldog’s post about bees and honey. More people came out in force against him than for him. I think that post, for instance, reduced the appetite for animal suffering discussion/action
Thank you!
On the code sharing. Yes, I thought about it, but it would take us a bit of effort to pull it all together and publish it online, I didn’t want to spend that effort if no one was going to get value from it. So far, no one has found the courage and 3 seconds of effort to put a comment asking for the data/code (or more likely, people just don’t want to spend the time wading through the code/data)
On nematodes, I think 169x the total number of neurons compared to humans is a poor/confused way to attempt to measure total welfare. And I think the second order effects of trying to convince people they should care about nemotodes (unless they are already diehard EA) is likely net negative for the animal suffering cause at large.
From Rob (waiting for his comment to be approved):
Thanks for trying Winnow! My guess is that you were redirected to the homepage after logging in and created a fresh document (no reviewers included by default). Now that you’re logged in, try creating a document directly from this page and it should work: https://www.winnow.sh/templates/ea-rationalist-writing-assistant
On the Egregore / religion part
I agree! Egregore is occult so definitely religion-adjacent. But I also believe EA as a concept/community is religion-adjacent (not necessarily in a bad way).
It’s a community, ethical belief, there is suggested tithing, sense of purpose/meaning, etc.
Funny—I don’t think it feels written by a critic, but definitely a pointed outsider (somewhat neutral?) 3rd party analysis.
I do expect the Egregore report to trigger some people (in good and bad ways, see the comment below about feeling heard). The purpose is to make things known that are pushed into the shadows, the good and the bad. Usually things are pushed into the shadows because people don’t want to or can’t talk about them openly.
Wow, I’m so happy something in our analysis was able to make you feel seen and heard 💙
I agree that there are issues in EA and I also hope the community is able to build up the courage and effort to solve them
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for the kind words!
We’d be very happy to jump on a call and discuss our methods in more detail, share the code, datasets, etc.
I’ll let @alejbo take this question—I think it’s a good one
Although at the high level I somewhat disagree with “I don’t think chatbots are very good at epistemology”, my guess would be they’re better than you think, but I agree not perfect or amazing
But as you admit, most humans aren’t either, so it’s already a low bar
Thank you! 🙏🏻
@robirahman this feature is now live—you can submit multiple applications from the same account, just go back to https://app.grantmaking.ai/apply/launch and it will say “Start another application”
You can only have one saved draft at a time though. So you have to submit application 2 before you start application 3