Hide table of contents

Register now: #AISummitTalks II, featuring Professor Stuart Russell and many others @ Wilton Hall, Bletchley, Tuesday 31 October, 14:00 to 15:30 GMT! - https://lu.ma/n9qmn4h6

About the Talks

The first edition of #AISummitTalks: Navigating Existential Risk was attended by over 250 people, with great engagement from the crowd.

For the second edition of our #AISummitTalks series about AI x-risk, we will meet just outside of the famous Bletchley Park on the eve of the #AISafetySummit. At the AI Safety Summit, world leaders will discuss for the first time how to prevent human extinction by AI. Society unfortunately will not have a say in these discussions, since only 150 people are invited. But at our AI Safety Summit Talks, organized together with Conjecture, you can be a part of this discussion!

Speakers

You will be joined by Existential Risk Observatory and Conjecture, who will host a keynote speech by none other than Prof. Stuart Russell (UC Berkeley), followed by a talk by Conjecture's Connor Leahy, among others. The event will be finalised by a panel discussion that brings together Andrea Miotti (Head of Strategy and Governance, Conjecture), as well as leading voices from the societal debate and the political realm, including investor Jaan Tallinn (Co-founder Centre for the Study of Existential Risk - CSER), Annika Brack (CEO The International Center for Future Generations - ICFG), Mark Brakel (Director of Policy, Future of Life Institute - FLI), Alexandra Mousavizadeh (Economist, CEO, Evident), Hal Hodson (Journalist The Economist), and a mystery guest! Moderator of the afternoon will be David Wood, chair of the London Futurists.

Register

Curious? Want to join the conversation? Be quick and reserve your spot - only 300 spots can be allocated. 

https://lu.ma/n9qmn4h6 

We're looking forward to welcoming you there!

9

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Recordings are now available!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as