Hide table of contents

We have 4 winners: Have a look at aisafety.art !

Notes on the votes, regarding feedback from the community:

I used STAR voting to process the votes, as some people kindly pointed out, and I also made sure by grouping the votes of logo variations that designs with many variations are not disadvantaged.

EDIT: vote here: http://vote.aisafety.art from 1st July - 14th July '23 11pm UCT 
and see page aisafety.art

EDIT: received all submissions, timeframe for voting will be delayed by about 2 weeks as one of the organisers wanted to add  more designs from a different source to the voting pool, but this won't affect prize distribution. (19th June 2023)

EDIT: extended deadline is Saturday May 27th 2023 11:59 PM UTC


This contest is about creating a logo to represent AI safety research. 

I’m being supported by an independent funder and people from nonlinear.org and am taking care of administration and communication.

We’re doing an open process (voting) and want to involve different people through the contest to get a better logo design and to increase the chances of adoption.

 

1) rough concept ideas contest

deadline: May 15th 2023

We’re looking for different quick and great design ideas for this round. Not everything has to be spot on yet, this will be done in 2) and 3) .

Submit as many rough logo design ideas as you want as a .PNG and .SVG file to this Google Form: https://forms.gle/6fwVYbPBrqVdCHax6

 

2) feedback & voting on best design ideas chosen by jury

DATE TBA

Via another Google Form, this post will be updated with the link once there’s a selection by the jury of 5 - 10 contest submissions available.

Only accounts with at least 100 Karma on forum.effectivealtruism.org or lesswrong.com are allowed to vote.

With a $ 1.5k prize pool for the best design ideas from the contest which are being used further, this might be one design or multiple as decided by the votes & the jury, with the prize money spread out evenly. 

We’re open for someone to increase the prize pool, please send me an email!

 

3) polishing of winning design(s)

We’ll hire a great designer for creating the final logo from the winning design(s).



After the completion of the contest the final logo will be publicly available for free use at www.aisafety.art .
If you have any questions please reach out to me at ai_logo@cipriani.studio 

------------------------------------------------------------------

I’d like to disclose here that I’m also trying to enter an idea myself, however I won’t be able to decide on my own which designs are considered for polishing.

Composition of the jury: two people from Nonlinear, an independent funder, me (Adrian Cipriani)



 

13

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments22


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Suggestion: use a well-designed voting system such as STAR voting, approval voting, or quadratic voting.

Thanks for suggesting @RomanHauksson , so far something along the lines of approval voting for multiple winners seems favourable to me.

The current form appears to only allow uploading image files; I can upload a PNG, but not an SVG. This is probably just as well in my case, as the SVG only makes it more painfully obvious that I have no idea how to use Inkscape, but it seems like unintended behavior you might want to change.

Changed it, thanks for noting. You can add it now :)

Really excited to see this happening!

I enjoy doing this kind of thing and would enter several entries if you removed the requirement for a .svg file. It creates a pretty significant amount of unnecessary hassle - I'd understand if it was for a finished product, but I'm not going to use vector for sketches.

PSA: The form accepts a maximum of 10 files, that is, 5 design proposals maximum (because each proposal requires uploading both a .png and a .svg file).

I added another field in case anyone wants to submit more than 5 different ideas in one turn.

Adrian - good idea; I hope you get some excellent submissions.

Are you open to logo designs by AI systems? It might be ironic if a logo designed with the help of Midjourney or Stable Diffusion ends up winning.

Thank you @Geoffrey Miller ! Yes, we expect some people will use Midjourney as a source for inspiration. However, we expect submissions to be vector graphic files (.SVG) as well.

I’ve tried designing logos on Midjourney before. I’ve personally found it to be off mark in all of the cases. It would be really cool if the logo that won did use AI though.

Only accounts with at least 100 Karma on forum.effectivealtruism.org or lesswrong.com are allowed to vote.

I'm a little confused by this. What's the motivation for using a karma threshold to decide who does and doesn't get to vote?

Hi Quinn,
this seems like a hurdle to prevent the use of sock puppets to prevent mass voting on your own logo idea. It is common that online voting gets attention of trolls, and they vote for something funny or extreme instead of good. This would partly also be the reason they use voting + the jury.
Voting gets the community engaged, they want to help their favourite creator and can also be part of the jury themselves.

Note: I am not a part of the organizer team and had no influence in the decision to use a threshold or on its height.

Yes, that's basically our motivation. Thanks @Felix Wolf for explaining!

@Felix Wolf Thanks for taking the time to explain, Felix. This makes sense now.

Also am I right in thinking that you're entering for prize money as well as making decisions on who gets the money? 

Yes, however my vote is just 25% as we're in a team of four people.

I think it's bad if you have any advantage at all over any other entrants. I imagine you're also in a good position to exert influence over the other jury members if you wanted to. All things considered I think it would be best, or at least the most fair, if you were not allowed to financially gain from this. 

I would appreciate others' input on this as well (eg via agreement up/downvote).

Hello @AnnieAB thanks for bringing it up, I didn't submit any ideas in the end. Hope this helps!

What's the exact deadline time tomorrow, please? 

We decided to extend the deadline until Saturday 27.5.23 11:59 PM UTC because we received only a little more than 20 different logo ideas so far. Hope this helps!

Aw, I stayed up late for nothing 😅 

You might need to spread this more widely than the forum if you haven't already.

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
LewisBollard
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
> Despite the setbacks, I'm hopeful about the technology's future ---------------------------------------- It wasn’t meant to go like this. Alternative protein startups that were once soaring are now struggling. Impact investors who were once everywhere are now absent. Banks that confidently predicted 31% annual growth (UBS) and a 2030 global market worth $88-263B (Credit Suisse) have quietly taken down their predictions. This sucks. For many founders and staff this wasn’t just a job, but a calling — an opportunity to work toward a world free of factory farming. For many investors, it wasn’t just an investment, but a bet on a better future. It’s easy to feel frustrated, disillusioned, and even hopeless. It’s also wrong. There’s still plenty of hope for alternative proteins — just on a longer timeline than the unrealistic ones that were once touted. Here are three trends I’m particularly excited about. Better products People are eating less plant-based meat for many reasons, but the simplest one may just be that they don’t like how they taste. “Taste/texture” was the top reason chosen by Brits for reducing their plant-based meat consumption in a recent survey by Bryant Research. US consumers most disliked the “consistency and texture” of plant-based foods in a survey of shoppers at retailer Kroger.  They’ve got a point. In 2018-21, every food giant, meat company, and two-person startup rushed new products to market with minimal product testing. Indeed, the meat companies’ plant-based offerings were bad enough to inspire conspiracy theories that this was a case of the car companies buying up the streetcars.  Consumers noticed. The Bryant Research survey found that two thirds of Brits agreed with the statement “some plant based meat products or brands taste much worse than others.” In a 2021 taste test, 100 consumers rated all five brands of plant-based nuggets as much worse than chicken-based nuggets on taste, texture, and “overall liking.” One silver lining
 ·  · 1m read
 ·