Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Adrian Cipriani1
0
0

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

Reply
See in context
by Adrian Cipriani
2 min read 23

13

AI safetyEffective altruism art and fictionPrizes and contests
Frontpage

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
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
RomanHauksson5
1
0

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

Reply
Adrian Cipriani4
0
0

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

Reply
jai4
1
0

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.

Reply
Adrian Cipriani2
0
0

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

Reply
Chris Leong3
0
0

Really excited to see this happening!

Reply
Milan Weibel🔹2
1
0

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).

Reply
Adrian Cipriani1
0
0

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

Reply
Geoffrey Miller2
0
0

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.

Reply
Adrian Cipriani2
0
0

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.

Reply
Constance Li1
0
0

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.

Reply
firinn2
0
0

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.

Reply
Quinn McHugh (he/him)1
0
0

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?

Reply
Felix Wolf 🔸6
1
0

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.

Reply
Adrian Cipriani4
0
0

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

Reply
Quinn McHugh (he/him)1
0
0

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

Reply
AnnieAB1
0
0

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

Reply
Adrian Cipriani1
0
0

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

Reply
AnnieAB1
1
0

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).

Reply
Adrian Cipriani1
0
0

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

Reply
AnnieAB1
0
0

What's the exact deadline time tomorrow, please? 

Reply
Adrian Cipriani1
0
0

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!

Reply
AnnieAB1
0
0

Aw, I stayed up late for nothing 😅 

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

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in AI safety
7
80,000 Hours is hiring for an Engagement Specialist
2 authors
· · 7m read
3
3
13
List of petitions against OpenAI's for-profit move
Remmelt
·
4
4
15
AE Studio is hiring!
AE Studio
·
0
0
View more