Hide table of contents

TLDR: 

We think starting city- and national-level field-building organisations can be a valuable way to contribute to AI Safety. If you are interested in getting support doing so, fill out this EOI (Expression of Interest) form. If you are already organising such a group but feel like you could benefit from more hands-on support, you can sign up as well.

I have recently put out a call for action about starting AI Safety groups at specific locations, but I wanted to make a short post about how we would be excited to support people at any location in starting such initiatives. To get a sense of what responsibilities running a city- or national-level field-building organisation entails, you can check out one of the posts above.

Based on your fit for starting such organisations, ENAIS would be happy to support you with:

  • Fundraising
  • Creating organisational strategy and structure
  • Mentoring and professional development
  • Networking
  • Promoting your group and finding existing AIS-interested people in your city/county
  • Providing career advice for your group members
  • Writing newsletters etc.

We are most interested in providing hands-on support for (prospective) fieldbuilders who are or would consider eventually working in a professional capacity (at least 20 hours per week or more), but to be clear, I’m excited to provide advising calls to any city or national AIS group organiser! For university groups, I would refer you to the awesome guys at Kairos (although I’m happy to do a quick call with any uni-group organiser to connect!) Consider also joining our monthly coordination calls, the ENAIS newsletter for fieldbuilders and my blog for knowledge-sharing about communitybuilding.

I would especially love experienced professionals to consider starting city and national organisations, as they are in a good position to attract other people with the same amount of experience. I think AI Safety is bottlenecked by the lack of such professionals in several ways, so working on this could be especially promising. If you are a mid-career or senior professional considering doing AIS fieldbuilding, I would be happy to talk to you, and we are more likely to be able to provide you with hands-on support even if you aren’t able or planning to transition to working in fieldbuilding at a professional capacity. If you are unsure about whether this is the right career move for you, you can still fill out the EOI form and indicate this. I would be happy to talk to you about the different considerations that might go into such a decision.

I have spent a lot of time thinking about the field-building strategy for ENAIS in the past months, and I think that starting such initiatives can be a valuable way to contribute to AI Safety for people with various career backgrounds. However, in this post, I won’t go into these considerations, as I’m planning to publish content about this in my substack called The Field Building Blog. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at gergo[at]enais.co or write a comment!

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:
[anonymous]3
0
0

"We think starting city- and national-level field-building organisations can be a valuable way to contribute to AI Safety."

I agree ;)

It might also be the safest way to "incubate" an AI Safety organisation (for all the Entrepreneurs out there).

It might also be the safest way to "incubate" an AI Safety organisation (for all the Entrepreneurs out there).

Can you expand on this a bit? Do you mean field-building orgs, or any AIS org in general? :)

[anonymous]2
1
0
1

I think the kind of org you’re trying to incubate has a proven model, making it a safer bet than starting another type of AIS org.

Talissa Smalley Fapello might love the idea of starting a local AI safety group—it's a great way to make a real impact!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.  Overview Background This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.  This conference has evolved since 2023: * The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel. * The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working. * This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round. We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.  Luckily, it seems like it has been working!  This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.  Outcomes On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
In our recent strategy retreat, the GWWC Leadership Team recognised that by spreading our limited resources across too many projects, we are unable to deliver the level of excellence and impact that our mission demands. True to our value of being mission accountable, we've therefore made the difficult but necessary decision to discontinue a total of 10 initiatives. By focusing our energy on fewer, more strategically aligned initiatives, we think we’ll be more likely to ultimately achieve our Big Hairy Audacious Goal of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually. (See our 2025 strategy.) We’d like to be transparent about the choices we made, both to hold ourselves accountable and so other organisations can take the gaps we leave into account when planning their work. As such, this post aims to: * Inform the broader EA community about changes to projects & highlight opportunities to carry these projects forward * Provide timelines for project transitions * Explain our rationale for discontinuing certain initiatives What’s changing  We've identified 10 initiatives[1] to wind down or transition. These are: * GWWC Canada * Effective Altruism Australia funding partnership * GWWC Groups * Giving Games * Charity Elections * Effective Giving Meta evaluation and grantmaking * The Donor Lottery * Translations * Hosted Funds * New licensing of the GWWC brand  Each of these is detailed in the sections below, with timelines and transition plans where applicable. How this is relevant to you  We still believe in the impact potential of many of these projects. Our decision doesn’t necessarily reflect their lack of value, but rather our need to focus at this juncture of GWWC's development.  Thus, we are actively looking for organisations and individuals interested in taking on some of these projects. If that’s you, please do reach out: see each project's section for specific contact details. Thank you for your continued support as we