Hide table of contents

Hello! 
 

I’m Anita, an MSc Social Cognition student at UCL. 

I’m writing my dissertation  on the extreme risk studies community. I’m currently running this short survey and would be super grateful if anyone working on these issues has time to take part! 

I'm hoping to understand what might encourage people to engage with extreme risks and careers in this field, and what this means for the broader epistemic communities being built around them. This study is also part of a broader project I'm working on as a Visiting Student at Edinburgh that explores these questions further. 

Who’s this survey for?

Anyone over 18 currently working on or studying extreme risks, such as: 

  • emerging technological risks, such as AI, nuclear security, biosecurity, and chemical weapons, and climate change
  • socio-natural hazards, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroids and comets
  • social and ecological drivers of extreme risks, such as inequality and environmental degradation

You’ll be able to indicate what you work on in the survey. It's also open to people working in an unpaid capacity, such as volunteers or interns, or studying these topics for their dissertations or degree. 

 

What’s involved? 

Answering a series of questions about your general beliefs, research area and career, identification with the EA community, and basic demographic questions It should take around 15 minutes. Your answers are anonymous and cannot be used to identify you 

 

Why take the survey?

Anyone who takes the survey can nominate a charity of their choosing to receive a £500 donation. We’ll randomly select a charity and announce the winner at the end of the study ! 

 

Contact

Feel free to get in touch with me on ucjungh@ucl.ac.uk if you have any questions about the study, and of course feel free to share with your friends. 

Thank you ! 



 

12

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Edited to make it slightly clearer re. target audience! 

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
 ·  · 19m read
 · 
I am no prophet, and here’s no great matter. — T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”   This post is a personal account of a California legislative campaign I worked on March-June 2024, in my capacity as the indoor air quality program lead at 1Day Sooner. It’s very long—I included as many details as possible to illustrate a playbook of everything we tried, what the surprises and challenges were, and how someone might spend their time during a policy advocacy project.   History of SB 1308 Advocacy Effort SB 1308 was introduced in the California Senate by Senator Lena Gonzalez, the Senate (Floor) Majority Leader, and was sponsored by Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). The bill was based on a report written by researchers at UC Davis and commissioned by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The bill sought to ban the sale of ozone-emitting air cleaners in California, which would have included far-UV, an extremely promising tool for fighting pathogen transmission and reducing pandemic risk. Because California is such a large market and so influential for policy, and the far-UV industry is struggling, we were seriously concerned that the bill would crush the industry. A partner organization first notified us on March 21 about SB 1308 entering its comment period before it would be heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, but said that their organization would not be able to be publicly involved. Very shortly after that, a researcher from Ushio America, a leading far-UV manufacturer, sent out a mass email to professors whose support he anticipated, requesting comments from them. I checked with my boss, Josh Morrison,[1] as to whether it was acceptable for 1Day Sooner to get involved if the partner organization was reluctant, and Josh gave me the go-ahead to submit a public comment to the committee. Aware that the letters alone might not do much, Josh reached out to a friend of his to ask about lobbyists with expertise in Cal