Hide table of contents

Today marks the launch of a new federal election campaign from Australians for AI Safety — bringing together leading AI experts to advocate for crucial safety policies ahead of the federal election. Good Ancestors has been leading the coordination of this initiative over the past few months and we need your help now!

What the campaign includes:

  • An expert-led open letter calling on the next government to establish an Australian AI Safety Institute and progress an Australian AI Act with mandatory guardrails for high-risk AI
  • An election scorecard showing where candidates in each electorate stand on these AI safety policies
  • Tools to contact local candidates who haven't shared their positions

Why this matters:

Australia committed to creating an AI Safety Institute as part of the Seoul Declaration but remains the only signatory country yet to deliver. With potentially transformative AI developments possible within the next few years, securing policy commitments during this election window represents a high-leverage opportunity.

The election is looking close, with forecasts suggesting approximately a 40% chance of a hung parliament (neither major party/coalition can form government on their own). This increases the importance (and opportunity) of securing commitments from multiple parties and independents who may hold the balance of power.

The campaign focuses on relatively narrow, tractable interventions that complement broader governance efforts. These asks are calibrated to what can realistically be achieved in the Australian policy context and what can meaningfully contribute to international AI safety.

How to help (even if you're not in Australia):

  1. Sign the open letter at australiansforaisafety.com.au — anyone can sign, but we especially want people with a connection to Australia (e.g., citizens, residents, or those who have lived/worked/studied there) and especially value experts and public figures.
  2. If you're registered to vote in Australia, email your local candidates through the website to ask for their positions
  3. Share the campaign with Australian contacts or those interested in AI governance with a connection to Australia
  4. Boost visibility by engaging with social media posts about the campaign

Why are people signing?

The signatories have been providing statements of support when signing the letter, here’s a select few:

  • “Australia risks being in a position where it has little say on the AI systems that will increasingly affect its future. An Australian AI Safety Institute would allow Australia to participate on the world stage in guiding this critical technology that affects us all.”
    Dr. Toby Ord, Senior Researcher at Oxford University and author of The Precipice: Existential Risks and the Future of Humanity
  • “It sets a dangerous precedent for Australia to formally commit to specific actions but fail to follow through. Australia is the only signatory that is yet to meet its obligations.”
    Greg Sadler, CEO of Good Ancestors and coordinator of Australians for AI Safety
  • “I support the creation of an Australian AI safety institute and the implementation of an AI Act. Both are urgently required to ensure that the risks associated with AI are effectively managed. We are fast losing the opportunity to ensure that all AI technologies are safe, ethical, and beneficial to humanity.”
    Prof. Paul Salmon, Centre for Human Factors and Sociotechnical Systems
  • "Robust assurance justifies trust. We’re all excited about the potential opportunities of AI, but not enough work is currently happening to address genuine safety concerns. It’s easy to understand why Australians are hesitant to adopt AI while these big issues are outstanding.”
    Yanni Kyriacos, Director of AI Safety Australia & New Zealand
  • “AI is as transformative as electricity and as powerful as nuclear technology. We wouldn’t handle those without clear mandatory safeguards, and AI should be no different. To support good policy, Australia's government also needs a dedicated AI Safety Institute to bring deep technical AI expertise into government.”
    Soroush Pour, CEO of Harmony Intelligence
  • “AI safety and security is a global challenge. But middle powers like Australia have an important role in shaping the global discourse and strengthening safety measures.”
    Oscar Delaney, Institute for AI Policy and Strategy
  • “We need to ensure AI systems align with our society’s needs and values, while ensuring a populace with a healthy educated skepticism of these systems. This is best achieved through an Australian AI Safety Institute and AI Act.”
    Prof. Richard Dazeley, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning at Deakin University

Questions or suggestions? Feel free to comment below or reach out directly.

Note: The Good Ancestors team would be happy to share our signature/scorecard platform and lessons learned with other campaigners working on similar initiatives in different countries. Please reach out if you're interested in adapting this approach for your context.

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for your work on this! I've signed the letter and have shared with colleagues. I'm proud that the Australian community is able to engage lawfully and transparently with the democratic process like this, without fear of retribution. Not everyone is so lucky.

Thanks for the post @Luke Freeman 🔸 .

Maybe this is a mildly spicy take, but I think as AI risks become more concrete and nearer term, our community should transition a portion of our time from “scouting” to “soldiering”. 

Scout mindset is great for finding new problems and new solutions. But once we have an idea of the problem and ideas for specific solutions, we need to execute the grind to make things happen in the messy real world of people and politics.

This is a great example of how a small bit of “soldiering” by our community helps achieve practical impact. 

Yep there has to be aspects of Soldiering in any real world work, and I think that might be especially important in this AI scenario. I don't think its that spicy a take, @Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 had a great quick take along similar lines here too.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/efE6K5QCfzNTSb5pf/scouts-need-soldiers-for-their-work-to-be-worth-anything

Thanks for this link. This made me laugh:

“Everyone Should be a Mapmaker and Fear that Using the Map to Actually Do Something Could Make Them a Worse Mapmaker” would be a much less rousing title, but this is how many EAs and rationalists have chosen to interpret the book.

Thanks for your work on this and in the past Luke and Greg! I've also signed the letter. I hope it has a positive impact going forward.

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