Hey!   I’m Kevin, an aspiring software engineer from Ghana. I’ve recently done the 80k 8 weeks career course and I’m excited to start earning-to-give. I’m looking for a mentor to help me land my first job and help me plan my career to maximise my expected donations! I’m in GMT +2. If you’d like to meet and figure out if we’re a good fit, please drop me an email on thekevin [dot] afachao [at] gmail [dotcom] or message me on LinkedIn.

Organizing good EAGx meetups EAGx conferences often feature meetups for subgroups with a shared interest / identity, such as "animal rights", "academia" or "women". Very easy to set up - yet some of the best events. Four forms I've seen are a) speed-friending b) brainstorming topics & discussing them in groups c) red-teaming projects d) just a big pile of people talking If you want to maximize the amount of information transferred, form a) seems optimal purely because 50% of people are talking at any point in time in a personalized fashion. If you want to add some choice, you can start by letting people group themselves / order themselves on some spectrum. Presenting this as "human cluster-analysis" might also make it into a nerdy icebreaker. Works great with 7 minute rounds, at the end of which you're only nudged, rather than required, to shift partners. I loved form c) for AI safety projects at EAGx Berlin. Format: A few people introduce their projects to everyone, then grab a table and present them in more detail to smaller groups. This form might in general be used to allow interesting people to hold small low-effort interactive lectures & utilizing interested people as focus groups. Form b) seems to be most common for interest-based meetups. It usually includes 1) group brainstorming of topics 2) voting on the topics 3) splitting up 4) presentations. This makes up for a good low-effort event that's somewhere between a lecture and a 1-on-1 in terms of required energy. However, I see 4 common problems with this format: Firstly, steps 1) and 2) take a lot of time and create unnaturally clustered topics (as brainstorming creates topics "token-by-token", rather than holistically). Secondly, in ad hoc groups with >5 members, it's hard to coordinate who takes the word and in turn, conversations can turn into sequences of separate inputs, e.g. members build less upon themselves. Thirdly, spontaneous conversations are hard to compress into useful takeaways that

Kelsey Piper’s article on SB 1047 says I’ve seen similar statements elsewhere too. But after I spent some time today reading through the bill, this seems to be wrong? Liability for developers doesn’t seem to be dependent on whether “critical harm” is actually done. Instead, if the developer fails to take reasonable care to prevent critical harm (or some other violation), even if there is no critical harm done, violations that cause death/bodily harm/etc can lead to fines of 10% or 30% of compute. Here’s the relevant section from the bill: Has there been discussion about this somewhere else already? Is the Vox article wrong or am I misunderstanding the bill?

Happy Ozone Day! The Montreal Protocol, a universally ratified treaty phasing out the use of ozone-destroying CFCs, was signed 37 years ago today. It remains one of the greatest examples of international cooperation to date.

It seems like some of the biggest proponents of SB 1047 are Hollywood actors & writers (ex. Mark Ruffalo)—you might remember them from last year’s strike. I think that the AI Safety movement has a big opportunity to partner with organised labour the way the animal welfare side of EA partnered with vegans. These are massive organisations with a lot of weight and mainstream power if we can find ways to work with them; it’s a big shortcut to building serious groundswell rather than going it alone. See also Yanni’s work with voice actors in Australia—more of this!