Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Joe Hardie, Erin Robertson
3 min read 3

42

Building effective altruismCommunityOpportunities to take actionEffective altruism groupsAI safety groupsAnnouncements and updatesHiringOrganization updatesUniversity groups
Frontpage

Arcadia Impact is a non-profit organisation that enables individuals in London to use their careers to tackle the world’s most pressing problems. We have existed for over a year as London EA Hub (LEAH) and we recently rebranded as an organisation to Arcadia Impact.

Our current projects: 

We're also currently hiring for two roles (details below).

EA Group Support

We support EA groups at Imperial, UCL, KCL, and LSE[1] which includes mentoring student organisers, encouraging collaboration between groups, and running events such as retreats. 

All four universities are ranked in the top 50 globally, with over 114,000 students collectively, presenting significant potential to build capacity to address pressing global problems. London offers a unique concentration of highly talented students, and therefore an exciting opportunity for EA groups to benefit from collaboration and coordination. Additionally, London is the world's largest EA hub, with an extensive network of professionals working on various causes. Despite this London university groups have historically lacked consistent organiser capacity relative to comparable universities.

Since we were founded last year, the groups have reached hundreds of students, with over 200 applying to reading groups. Students who joined our programmes have started full-time roles, attended research programmes, or continued studying with the goal of contributing to a range of EA cause areas. Given the size and potential of the universities, we think there is still significant room to expand and improve our work.

Safe AI London

We support AI Safety field building activities with Safe AI London (SAIL) supporting individuals in London to find careers that reduce risks from advanced artificial intelligence. 

We do this by:

  1. Running targeted outreach to technical courses at Imperial and UCL due to the concentration of talent on Computer Science and related courses. 
  2. Educating people on the alignment problem, through technical and governance reading groups and speaker events.
  3. Up-skilling people on machine learning through upskilling programmes or by encouraging them to apply to programmes such as ARENA.
  4. Allowing them to test their fit for research through MARS London, research sprints, and connecting them to other research opportunities such as MATS.
  5. Creating a community of people in London and connecting people to opportunities within the field through socials and retreats.

London is Europe’s largest hub for AI talent and is becoming an increasingly relevant location for AI safety, with Google DeepMind, Anthropic and OpenAI opening offices here, and AI Safety researchers at MATS, Conjecture, and Center on Longterm Risk. The UK Government has also launched the AI Safety Institute which is working on AI Safety Research within the UK government. 

AI Safety university groups have shown promising results over the last year and London universities have a unique concentration of talented students relevant to AI safety with Imperial and UCL ranked in the top 25 universities for computer science courses globally. 

LEAH Coworking Space

The LEAH Coworking Space is an office space in central London used by professionals and students working on impactful projects. The office aims to provide value from:

  1. Improving the productivity of professionals doing impactful work. In our most recent user survey, users reported an average of 6.3 additional productive hours per week from using the space.
  2. Causing impactful connections and interactions between users.
  3. Various situations where we offer assistance to the wider community:
    1. Allowing other organisations to use the space for events.
    2. Enabling in-person meetings and coworking for remote organisations.

We also benefit from using the space to host many of our events including research sprints, reading groups, and socials.

Since we moved offices in May 2023 (~8.5 months ago), we have recorded a total of >21,000 person-hours across >2,800 visits to our space and 191 unique users including visitors[2] and guests. 

If you are interested in applying to join the space, you can apply using this form.

We’re Hiring

We are currently hiring for two roles: 

  • Head of Groups: Lead our work on supporting Effective Altruism Groups at Imperial, UCL, KCL, and LSE including mentoring group leaders, running inter-university events, running events, and connecting the groups with opportunities in the EA community. 
  • Head of AI Safety: Lead our work on AI Safety field-building through Safe AI London including running reading groups, hackathons, machine learning upskilling programmes, and designing programmes for more advanced students.

Apply by 19th January. 

We expect the ideal candidates for these roles will be highly familiar with the relevant ideas and feel comfortable working independently. 

If you’d like to learn more about the roles, we are running a drop-in session at 5 pm GMT on the 5th of January. Add to calendar, video call link.

If you have any questions or want to find out more about our work, then get in touch!
 

  1. ^

    We also work closely with EA Northeastern London.

  2. ^

    We estimate the actual person-hours and number of visits is higher than this due to users forgetting/not signing in and out.

42

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments3


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Vael Gates3
0
0

Neat! As someone who's not on the ground and doesn't know much about either initiative, I'm curious what Arcadia's relationship is London Initiative for Safe AI (LISA)? Mostly in the spirit of "if I know someone in AI safety in London, in what cases should I recommend them to each?"

Reply
Joe Hardie3
0
0

Thanks for the question! We aren't connected in any official capacity and haven't collaborated on any projects.
For the events we run, they are focused on students and young professionals that haven't engaged with AI safety arguments or the community before. LISA is more focused on those already doing relevant research. As office spaces, the majority of our users attend as individuals (working independently or as the only person from their organisation), while LISA is hosts organisations and up-skilling programs. Our office has a wider focus than just AI safety although I expect there is some overlap in the people we would accept, and a small number of users that are signed up to both offices.

Reply
More from Joe Hardie
48
Join the interpretability research hackathon
5 authors
· · 6m read
0
0
View more
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
29
Introducing Effective Accountability: Project and Job Search Accountability Groups
2 authors
· · 2m read
0
0
15
Applications to EAGxCDMX close in a week!
cescorza
· · 2m read
0
0
32
Internship at the EA Hotel
CEEALAR
· · 1m read
0
0
View more