Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by adityaraj@eanita
2 min read 0

1

AI safetyPublic communication on AI safetyResearch
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://medium.com/@rajsecrets/ai-safety-why-we-need-to-keep-our-smart-machines-in-check-69fd926f6bd3

Hey there! I’ve been thinking a lot about AI lately — you know, those super-smart computer programs that seem to be popping up everywhere. It’s pretty wild how they’re changing the world, right? But here’s the thing: as cool as AI is, we need to make sure it doesn’t go off the rails. That’s where AI safety comes in, and I want to break it down for you.

So, what’s the big deal with AI safety?

Imagine giving a super-powerful tool to a toddler. Scary, right? Well, AI is kind of like that tool. It’s amazing, but if we’re not careful, it could cause some serious problems. AI safety is all about making sure these smart systems do what we want them to do, without any nasty surprises.

Here are the main things we need to watch out for:

1. Making sure AI thinks like us (well, the good parts of us, anyway)
2. Building AI that doesn’t freak out when something unexpected happens
3. Understanding how AI makes decisions (no black boxes allowed!)
4. Keeping our personal info safe from nosy AIs
5. Making sure AI treats everyone fairly, no matter who they are

This isn’t just a problem for tech geeks — it affects all of us. AI is spreading all over the world, changing how we work, learn, and live. It’s helping doctors spot diseases, teaching kids in far-off places, and even fighting climate change. But if we mess up on the safety part, we could be in for a world of trouble.

So, how do we keep AI in line?

It’s not easy, I’ll tell you that. These AI systems can get super complicated. But smart people around the world are working on it. They’re coming up with rules for building AI responsibly, putting safeguards into the systems themselves, and doing tons of testing to make sure everything works right.

The tricky part is that AI keeps getting smarter, so we need to stay on our toes. We’ve got to keep researching new safety tricks, update our laws to deal with AI, and make sure the companies and governments building these things are doing it responsibly.

What can we do about it?

Here’s the cool thing: we all have a part to play in this. We can:

- Learn about AI and how it affects us
- Ask questions when we see AI being used
- Support politicians and companies that take AI safety seriously
- Think about the ethical side of AI in our own work and studies

The bottom line is this: AI could be amazing for solving big problems and making our lives better. But only if we get the safety part right. It’s like putting on a seatbelt before driving a super-fast car — we want to enjoy the ride without worrying about crashing.

So let’s work together to make sure our AI future is awesome, not awful. Trust me, it’s worth the effort!

1

1
0

Reactions

1
0
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
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
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in AI safety
27
Apply to the Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship 2025
Harrison 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
19
Evals projects I'd like to see, and a call to apply to OP's evals RFP
cb
· · 4m read
2
2
23
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
View more