The Australian Government is considering how to regulate AI in Australia, has published a discussion paper ("Safe and Responsible AI"), and has invited feedback by 26 July 2023:

"We want your views on how the Australian Government can mitigate any potential risks of AI and support safe and responsible AI practices."

Good Ancestors Policy (goodancestors.org.au/policy), with the support of EA and AI Safety community organisers in Australia, have coordinated Australians' submissions to the feedback process.

Today, the website Australians for AI Safety launched with a co-signed letter (media release). The letter called on the relevant Australian Federal Minister, Ed Husic, to take AI safety seriously by:

  1. recognising the catastrophic and existential risks
  2.  addressing uncertain but catastrophic risks alongside other known risks 
  3. working with the global community on international governance
  4. supporting research into AI safety

Good Ancestors Policy have also held community workshops across Australia (e.g., Brisbane, Perth) to support members of the EA and AI Safety community in understanding the feedback process and preparing submissions, including access to some of the best evidence and arguments for acknowledging and addressing risks from AI. Policy ideas are drawn from the Global Catastrophic Risk Policy database (https://www.gcrpolicy.com/ideas), the AI Policy Ideas database (aipolicyideas.com), and expert community input.

So far, about 50 members of the community have attended a workshop, and feedback we've received is that the workshops have been very helpful, the majority (~75% people) are likely or very likely (>80% likelihood) to make a submission, and that most (~70% people) would be unlikely or very unlikely (<20% likelihood) to have made a submission without the workshop.

If you're an Australian living in Australia or overseas, and you'd like to make a submission to this process, there is one more online community workshop on Saturday 22 July at 3pm AEST (UTC+10).  Register here for the workshop!

Contact Greg Sadler (greg@goodancestors.org.au) or Alexander Saeri (alexander@goodancestors.org.au) if you'd like to stay involved.

51

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks so much for the summary Zan.  The letter has attracted a really good spread of AI expertise in Australia, has given us a vehicle to talk to other experts and government advisors less focused on safety issues. The letter is also attracting a reasonable amount of media attention this morning. 

It's hard to overstate how backwards the Australian government's leadership is on AI safety concerns at this point in time. If things continue as they are, it's essentially certain that the Australian government is going to be a skeptical voice in any multilateral negotiations relating to global agreements and standards setting etc. Given Australia's geopolitical position, it would meaningfully harm global efforts if Australia is pulling in the wrong direction.

I'm really hopeful that this effort will have a meaningful impact in Australia correcting course. This is a great start, but it will require sustained effort. 

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