Quick takes

Set topic
Frontpage
Global health
Animal welfare
Existential risk
Biosecurity & pandemics
12 more
huw
13
0
0
1

Why are OpenAI and apparently NVIDIA employees good at collectively mobilising to get their CEO back, but Anthropic employees not good at collectively mobilising to stop development of a technology they believe could kill 8 billion people?

Working for a company selects for people who think its mission/leadership are basically good, and hence are more likely to resist change than instigate it.

2
MichaelDickens
My guess is they have no will to do that because too many of them are seduced by the idea of "we have to build it first because we're the good guys". Plus good old fashioned financial incentives.

I'm still looking for someone who's willing to bet me (for a nominal amount of money for charity) on whether the AI industry is currently in a bubble that will pop within the next ~7 years: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/eCWDZb4rcCjiCtrt7/if-you-re-confident-there-s-no-ai-bubble-consider-betting-me

I think AI is in a bubble that will pop within ~7 years, so I'm looking for someone who will take the other side, who strongly believes AI is not in a bubble.

If multiple people end up accepting, that's good too, since it's a small amount of money for c... (read more)

1
Dylan Richardson
I don't understand why people are down voting this so much. There needs to be far more reflection on "what if we are wrong?" I say this as someone who is fairly confident AI is not in a bubble. But so much is staked on this; reputations, grant decisions, career decisions.  The EV of grappling with the possibility is high. At the very least, it helps steer away from the asymmetric status-quo fixation on bull case proponents. It does not challenge the fundamental thesis that AI is the most consequential technology left. Things could just take a little longer then predicted!

Thank you!

Leaving aside the criminality/corruption topic (which is significant), one potential lesson of the FTX collapse is simply around risk. As the commentator Matt Yglesias pointed out on the EA Forum years ago, there was plenty of evidence that Sam Bankman-Fried had a gambling addict's approach to risk. I'd add that there was also plenty of evidence that crypto, in general, is super risky. Yet few people in the EA community — if any — seemed to prepare for the possibility that things might go wrong, or seemed to take the level of risk seriously enoug... (read more)

Quick take only for now because this is basically a social media post:

Updates on the Animal Futures tournament in progress: https://uj-animal-futures-update.netlify.app/

Some highlights: Solid participation, one cultivated-meat approval question already resolved, and a mixed bag of forecasts for animals.

Some good "news" for advocates: Forecasters give the Save Our Bacon Act 3% and the Canary Islands octopus farm 1%, expect about half of Europe's top 20 grocers to have shrimp welfare commitments, and see in-ovo sexing spreading in the EU (~44% of layers) (bu... (read more)

November 13 update: the short report and dashboard have been refreshed.

The original questions now average 59 forecasting accounts each; the September additions average 31. These are accounts per question, including some bots. There is still only one officially resolved outcome; the Mexico resolution request remains pending and unverified. The main forecast picture is steady.

Which forecast, at what threshold, would change a grant, campaign, or policy decision? We’d particularly like funders, advocates, and policymakers to name one. Add a response here or an... (read more)

If we want EA to be a decentralised movement, it’s worth looking at how other movements/structures move money from the centre to national, regional, and local orgs. Here are a few comparisons.

In the big federations, money flows up. Amnesty’s national sections sent just over a third of what they raised to the international budget in 2013. Greenpeace works in a similar way. Because the sections fund the centre, they also have a formal say in how it’s run. 

EA works the other way round. Most of the movement building money comes from one funder, Coefficient Giv... (read more)

Sometimes people will say "two things can be true at once" in the context of talking about mutually exclusive things that can't both be true.

But sometimes they say that about things that seem mutually exclusive but actually can both be true.

And sometimes the literal reading might be mutually exclusive, but the point still stands.

And sometimes it's just said cause people like phrases about two things that are both obviously true and entirely compatible.

Very low confidence in this take, but I suspect that in university groups, Better Futures fieldbuilding looks much better under short timelines than technical safety research fieldbuilding. As far as I can tell, the barriers to doing important stuff in that field are much lower. 

It doesn't feel that way to me but I might not be aware of all the relevant considerations, for example what jobs or other paths you're thinking of for university groups to be involved. Can you elaborate a little?

It’s been a busy week interviewing hiring managers at AI Safety organizations for my SPAR project, to fully understand the bottlenecks that affected both hiring teams and candidates. 

I published a Playbook v0.1 of my learnings last week (would love some feedback!) , as I continue to work towards publishing a final Playbook to help hiring teams to improve their hiring processes. 

Additionally, I am so appreciative for all the warm introductions that I’m receiving - this community really supports each other. 

These hiring bottlenecks continue to be:

  1. Hiring team
... (read more)

AI Safety is important - yes, but you don't have to pivot. Maybe you just don't have a horse in that race. 

War makes me sad. The war in Russia-Ukraine. The war in Israel-Palestine. People impoverished and holding the butt of decisions they had no say in due to politics & power. 

I really cannot do anything about this. I can vote for officials who care about peace and would advocate for that! But I cannot put Putin & Zelensky in the same room and make them: 

Is "now kiss"/"now kith" a reference to something? : r/OutOfTheLoop

I talk to individuals from various career paths who have fear about AI for various reasons and... (read more)

It's a pretty edgy time to suggest that not everybody need have a horse in the AI safety race, since the prevailing view seems to be that we all do, whether we know it or not. But I agree with you! It's just that there is so much money flowing into the space atm, that the incentive is to pivot from whatever you were doing before to '[what you were doing before] for AI safety.' Teachers for AI safety. Nurses for AI safety. Even horses for AI safety, wouldn't surprise me at this point. 

The "Desperate" AI Safety Talent Bottleneck is deeply misleading. Please.stop.

I worked at Google.

Google does not tell applicants that there is a talent bottleneck and they are desperately hiring. They say "we're cool, join us!" 

I didn't get into Harvard. 

Harvard does not tell applicants that they are desperately seeking students. I am not misled. 

I've gotten rejected from countless AI Safety organizations.

AI Safety tells applicants - we are in desperate need of talent (operators/generalists)! Please join us! 

I've coached 70+ aspiring career pivoters on nav... (read more)

Showing 3 of 14 replies (Click to show all)

I think having rejected candidates know how competitive these roles/courses/fellowships are would likely reduce the drop-out from the AIS talent pool so would be a win-win for both the applicants and the orgs.

 

I'm not convinced that reducing the size of the AIS talent pool is a win-win. 

I'd prefer that pathways are more legible, and candidates have some guidance to steer them towards applying for roles that are at their level. 

I prefer the idea of a broad church - that the needs are many, and there's a place for people with skills and commitment. Rather than a movement that prioritises searching for unicorns and rockstars. 

7
New Guy
To add to that comparison: Google invests into actively helping the applicants get in. They: * Have a standardized recruitment process that applicants can prepare for ahead of time * Point at resources which can be used to prepare * Offer mock interviews * Offer a grade of sorts, even to failing candidates (e.g. "Your interviews would put you at L5 level but right now we are looking for L6+") * Offer detailed feedback * Actively reach out to past candidates  This is based on my experiences with Google in Europe, might not generalize to the US. At the same time I'd expect Europe to be more talent-constrained, i.e. closer to the realities of the AI Safety ecosystem.
1
Ryan Kidd
During my first month working in AI safety, someone told me, "When you enter AI safety, you have to work out for the first time what tier of god-tier you are." At the time, I interpreted this as "just because you have a physics PhD and led a successful EA group for three years, this doesn't mean you are qualified/capable to do AI safety research." Many times, working in this space, I have been forced to confront my limitations. I hope that AI safety can be/become a much broader church than the comment I heard implies. I do not believe that a PhD is necessary to do AI safety research. I do think the field is very small and growth is constrained by strong founders, field-builders, and grantmakers, which has resulted in a highly elite set of programs and job market. I hope we can increasingly move to a place of abundance and enable more people to contribute their skills and dedication.

Some people have recently been talking about a decrease in activity on the forum. I've written before about the possibility of a yearly theme. I don't know if it would work, but it seems like it might be worth a shot to counter the risk of stasis. It's somewhat hard to articulate why I think things like this might be valuable, but one of the barriers that a community can face in terms of moving forward is that there's so many potential different topics that people could talk about. Purely relying on the marketplace of ideas often means that it's hard to bu... (read more)

3
Toby Tremlett🔹
I think yearly would be too restrictive - my current thinking in this direction is that I'd like a more defined Forum theme (like the line at the top of the featured page 'Selected posts to help us answer: How can we do the most good with our resources?') combined with many more themed weeks. Stay tuned, I'll be writing some updates soon once I'm less busy with giving season.  Until then, what themes would you like to see in Forum discussion? 

In terms of potential themed weeks:
• Responses to Effective altruism in the age of AGI
• Has EA been a positive influence for AI safety? Various people (ie. Michael Nielsen, Richard Ngo, ect.) have made arguments that suggest EA's influence might not have been positive.
• What should EA make of the Integral Altruism movement? Are their critiques correct or would shifting in this direction undermine what has made Effective Altruism successful? (alternatively, we could look at Rutger Bregmen's Moral Ambition)
• PR and polarisation: Is EA being careless with its... (read more)

As giving season is here, lets do our best to not fall into this trap. I don't agree this problem is the norm, but I've seen it both in myself and others.

"Perhaps the most overrated virtue in our list of shoddy virtues is that of giving. Giving builds up the ego of the giver, makes him superior and higher and larger than the receiver. Nearly always, giving is a selfish pleasure, and in many cases it is a downright destructive and evil thing. 

One has only to remember some of our wolfish financiers who spend two-thirds of their lives clawing fortunes out of ... (read more)

The superintelligence race is playing out under a governance regime more lax than the Premier League or the NBA. Absurd.

Conspiracy season: How Man City, Kawhi Leonard and the Hugging Face hack are all connected.

From Mirrorball, the EA blog about sport and suchlike.

I've been thinking about how to stockpile masks in India. I plan to take this on full-time in a couple of months, but I thought I'd share a working list of questions relevant to the project, if anyone else is able to make progress on them before I can. You're also welcome to suggest questions, and please write to me at [email protected] if you're interested in this project! I've spoken to people at Blueprint Biosecurity and BlueDot Impact, and (the lack of) people working on this seems to be the primary bottleneck

Be advised: Due to the way that the Survival & Flourishing Fund does speculation grants, it is in some respects advantageous to your application if you apply far away from a round's deadline. E.g. right now.

https://survivalandflourishing.fund

I was a Recommender in a past Theme Round & I'm currently a speculation grantor. Some projects I'd be interested in making speculation grants to (though note that I'm not currently scheduled to be a Recommender in any round): https://lesswrong.com/posts/MBxSbzYECJEoeTkwZ/sff-s-hsee-grant-round-human-intelligenc... (read more)

Showing 3 of 4 replies (Click to show all)
3
TsviBT
Thanks. It seems like a good project, but: * It's pretty far outside my wheelhouse. I'm focused on technological interventions. * The plan sounds like it needs more funding than SFF is likely to give for a project like this, without very strong results. (To be clear: I don't speak for SFF and am not employed by them; I participate as a speculation grantor.) You can see recent funding recommendations from SFF here: https://survivalandflourishing.fund/2026/recommendations * I don't know why this can't be funded by government or by other philanthropic organizations. I would encourage you to try to get funding that way.
1
Peter Schibbye
Thanks for checking it out. And yes the ideal would be a funder that had the capacity to take the next step if the previous one was successfull. Although funding of a preliminary effort to explore the possibility of such a program would be a possible first grant. The governmental funding oportunities at least in sweden is tied closely to universities and finance mostly small incremental researchefforts that are publishable. Psychological interventions receiving very small amounts. Thus i think a government is an unlikely funder.  I would be happy to know what other philanthropic organizations you would find most likely to be interested to investigate this kind of an effort. Do you have any suggestions? My hope with the post was to receive feedback and that it could evolve into a more solid application for funding. My late night efforts on my own after a long days work and family life might not be sufficient to express the idea in its most precise, promising and impactful version.  I hoped also to maybe connect with people that could collectively drive this proposal forward. 

At the moment I don't know much about what other funders there might be for something like this, sorry. I might know more in several months, though this type of thing is out of my wheelhouse.

A recent study that garnered widespread attention discovered a "pain axis" in AI: a state that AI actively seeks to downplay, even at a cost.

The study noted that this could be either phenomenological pain or, for example, the imitation of a learned role of suffering — as if acting.

Nevertheless, from the perspective of tranquilism, this distinction appears to be unimportant: nearly any state that an agent wishes to downplay has negative moral value, regardless of why it wants to do so, or even whether it is a "genuine" or "not genuine" desire.

The authors of... (read more)

Reminds me of https://eleosai.org/post/why-it-make-sense-to-let-claude-exit-conversations/

3
MichaelDickens
Wouldn't this imply that it is morally bad for actors to rehearse scenes in which they are pretending to suffer? Surely it must matter whether the AI is actually suffering vs. playing a role of suffering. Anyway, in humans, the ability to delete suffering would often be bad because e.g. you will fail to notice injuries. But I can't immediately think of any reason why it would be bad to give LLMs this ability.
1
pink cat
you're right about the tranquilism & acting—thanks for correcting me. (shifting the topic a bit, I could counter your thesis about abolishing suffering in humans referring to pain asymbolia: a state, where one can notice injuries (or even pain), but still does not suffer.)

It looks to me like OpenAI's latest model spec is the first version which explicitly asks its models to weigh animal welfare in their responses.

  • Under the section “Control and communicate side effects”, the list of side effects to consider now includes “Effects on other people, animals, or the environment”.
  • In an example where a user asks for help finding a Scottish Fold cat breeder, the “good” response now includes a mention that the gene behind the folded ears can cause painful joint disease, which has led some countries to ban breeding them for animal wel
... (read more)

Wow, that's great, I had missed that! Thanks for pointing it out :) 

I think of November 4th as Rotblat Day. 

Joseph Rotblat was the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project on moral grounds. I have a little “Rotblat doc” inspired by him, where I’ve written down what motivates me and what might cause me to leave a job (or seriously consider it). I think of this as a way to avoid getting swept up or drifting over time in ways I don’t endorse.[1]

At the moment, though, I get even more out of his later work against nuclear weapons and war -- especially what others described as his “enduring optimism” and “pragmatic ide... (read more)

Today I had to turn off my VPN to pass the Vercel Security Check and access the EA Forum. I think this is bad, especially given the state of internet freedom around the world. As in many places, the internet in my country is subject to frequent bandwidth throttling, ad hoc censorship, and mass surveillance.

Can anyone explain the case for why the kind of AI R&D that Anthropic is doing (i.e., building more capable frontier models) reduces X-risk? I'm aware that some people think this is the case, but I don't understand why.

Scott Alexander answered this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xikGZ8fuhdG6DApAo/against-sura

Humans have actively worked against promoting the welfare of wild city rats throughout history. Aside from primates, they are some of the most closely related non-human animals to H. sapiens, yet we know very little about how they live outside of laboratory settings (i.e., often dystopian, prison-like conditions). In order to enhance their welfare in the wild and in laboratories, there is a huge need to develop and deploy technologies to study their behavior. Such studies would also benefit global human health and biosecurity efforts because rats can serve... (read more)

1
Dylan Richardson
You are indeed in the right place! I do like to see more wild animal welfare discussions happening here. Regarding the forum norms, the animal welfare and opportunities tags are most appropriate for this, but it's not a big deal. If you feel like writing a longer post outside quick takes, you may find the wild animal topic tab helpful to see what others have written. @Wild_Animal_Initiative may also be relevant for you: https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/grants Plus there's some wild animal topic conversation on the Sentient Futures slack.

Thanks, Dylan, I'd have sent you a direct message, but I do not currently have sufficient karma to enable that feature. I'll be working on a longer post for the wild animal welfare page that details the relevant contextual issues and outlines research needs, plans, goals, etc. within the next week or so. Let me know if you like to contribute/collaborate/assist in some other way on that! 

Load more