Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
pete17
0
0

Just commenting to say I’m independently aware of this lawsuit and find it really promising, and would recommend funders take a closer look and see if it’s a good opportunity for them.

Reply
See in context
by Sonia M Joseph
3 min read 1

77

PolicyAI safetyLawAI governanceAnnouncements and updatesOrganization updates
Frontpage

Disclaimer: I am not writing this message in connection to my employer, my institution, or any third party. This is a personal judgement call, exercised solely in my own capacity.

Summary

Over the past few months, I have been involved in supporting insider reports about misconduct in AGI frontier labs. In particular, I’ve been supporting the victim of a crime perpetrated by an AGI frontier lab leader.

I am reaching out to the AI safety and governance community for support regarding their legal case, which has significant implications for AI development.

Details

I have known the crime victim well for many years, and they have earned my highest trust. After intensive discussions with them, I can attest that they have approached this lawsuit with serious consideration and compelling reasons. 

A reputable law firm has agreed to take their case on contingency. I have reviewed the case in detail. Frankly, I am disturbed and unsettled by its contents. I also fear the implications for the rest of the industry.

Further, I have spent significant time around Silicon Valley AI communities and have the context to be aware of troubling practices. I believe that their legal case will bring to light structural problems with the current AI industry leadership, which will shift the course of AGI development for the better. 

With proper legal protection, the victim may be able to speak more freely about what they have witnessed, which will be valuable information for the AI industry as a whole. 

Not doing anything would mean that there is little chance for public discovery or to correct bad practices. The follow-on effects of this lack of accountability on the highest level of leadership in AI frontier labs are most likely negative. 

I would like to discuss the entire chain of reasoning, but doing so would currently interfere with the legal process. I hope to one day also speak more freely. The lawsuit, if it were to become public, would speed up the date when that could happen.

The plaintiff cares deeply about getting AI right. In addition to taking on the mental cost of the lawsuit, the plaintiff has pledged to give 10% of the potential upside to the AI safety and governance community.

There are two main obstacles to the lawsuit. The first is funding. Secondly, it will be taxing (and maybe even dangerous) for the plaintiff. They are willing to do it to support lab leader accountability for the benefit of the broader AI safety and governance community. Dealing with this crime is taking up the majority of the plaintiff’s time.

They have found a lawyer who will work on commission, meaning the lawyer only gets paid if the case succeeds, but then the law firm will receive a substantial amount of the upside (i.e. the lawyer will be paid by damages awarded to the plaintiff). The plaintiff will still need to pay expenses, regardless of the outcome of the case.

Expenses include everything except the lawyer’s hourly billing. For example:

  • depositions
  • expert witnesses
  • cybersecurity for the victim and key witnesses
  • physical security, such as bodyguards, if needed
  • media training / publicist, if needed
  • moving to a safer location, if needed
  • filing fees
  • any expenses for the law firm, such as travel
  • counseling
  • unforeseen events

Being able to cover these expenses will dramatically increase the likelihood of this case going ahead successfully. There is a shrinking window to file this case.

If the costs of the lawsuit end up lower than expected (for instance, if it doesn’t proceed to a jury trial), we will return the funds to you or donate them to an org supporting insider reports in AI frontier labs. 

Call to Action

Litigate-for-impact is an underexplored path toward developing safe AGI. I propose that this opportunity is both low cost and high impact in the context of AI safety.

It is low cost because the main legal fees are taken care of. The plaintiff only needs to cover the expenses listed above, which is why we are reaching out to the AI safety community for fiscal support.

It is high impact because it is a chance to uncover the recklessness of an AGI frontier lab.

If you are an individual who wants to help, please get in touch with me. If you’re at an org that would consider fiscal sponsorship for this project, please contact me, too.

77

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments1


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
pete17
0
0

Just commenting to say I’m independently aware of this lawsuit and find it really promising, and would recommend funders take a closer look and see if it’s a good opportunity for them.

Reply
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
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
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Recent opportunities in AI safety
28
Apply to the Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship 2025
Harrison 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
24
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
47
Australians for AI Safety Launches New Election Campaign — Here's How You Can Help
Luke Freeman 🔸
· · 3m read
5
5
View more