Cross-posted as there may be others interested in educating others about early-stage research fields on this forum. I am considering taking on additional course design projects over the next few months. Learn more about hiring me to consult on course design.

Introduction / TL;DR

So many important problems have too few people with the right skills engaging with them.

Sometimes that’s because nobody has heard of your problem, and advocacy is necessary to change that. However, once a group of people believe your problem is important, education is the next step in empowering those people with the understanding of prior work in your field, and giving them the knowledge of further opportunities to work on your problem.

Education (to me) is the act of collecting the knowledge that exists about your field into a sensible structure, and transmitting it to others in such a way that they can develop their own understanding.

In this post I describe how the AI Safety Fundamentals course helped to drive the fields of AI alignment and AI governance forward. I’ll then draw on some more general lessons for other fields that may benefit from education, which you can skip straight to here.

I don’t expect much of what I say to be a surprise to passionate educators, but when I was starting out with BlueDot Impact I looked around for write-ups on the value of education and found them lacking. This might help others who are starting out with field building and are unsure about putting time into education work.

Case study: The AI Safety Fundamentals Course

Running the AI Safety Fundamentals Course

Before running the AI Safety Fundamentals course, I was running a casual reading group in Cambridge, on the topic of technical AI safety papers.

We had a problem with the reading group: lots of people wanted to join our reading group, would turn up, but would bounce because they didn’t know what was going on. The space wasn’t for them. Not only that, the experienced members in the group found themselves repeatedly explaining the same initial concepts to newcomers. The space wasn’t delivering for experienced people, either.

It was therefore hard to get a community off the ground, as attendance at this reading group was low. Dewi (later, my co-founder) noticed this problem and got to work on a curriculum with Richard Ngo – then a PhD student at Cambridge working on the foundations of the alignment problem. As I recall it, their aim was to make an ‘onboarding course for the Cambridge AI safety reading group’. (In the end, the course far outgrew that remit!)

There was no great way to learn about alignment, pre-2020

To help expose some of the signs that a field is ready for educational materials to be produced, I’ll briefly discuss how the AI alignment educational landscape looked before AISF.

In 2020, the going advice for how to learn about AI Safety for the first time was:

1. Read everything on the alignment forum. I might not need to spell out the problem with this advice but:

• A list of blog posts is unstructured, so it’s very hard to build up a picture of what’s going on. Everyone was building their own mental framework for alignment from scratch.
• It’s very hard for amateurs to discern material quality or pre-requisites, so a lot of time is wasted in identifying seminal pieces amongst half-baked ideas.

1. Speak to AI safety researchers. There were two problems with this:

• That doesn’t scale – it’s super time-inefficient for researchers to explain basic concepts to every newcomer, and share the 3 best blog posts that come to their mind during the call.
• It selects against people who are less confident. Many people are afraid of looking foolish whilst asking basic questions from experts, or don’t feel worth the experts’ time, which would prevent them reaching out.

I expect that most fields look like this at the beginning, and that might be acceptable whilst demand is small and niche.

However, there comes a time where the time inefficiency becomes unacceptable for learners (because there is more and more material to sift through) and experts (due to a high number of requests for 1-1s, and it being hard to discern which calls are worth it or not). It’s unfortunately a little difficult to spot when the time to make a course comes.

Uncaptured interest in AI safety

The Effective Altruism community had promoted AI safety as a pressing problem for some years by the time we made AISF. That was largely because the field was still very new – the claim was not enough people were focusing on the problem of AI safety relative to its potential scale. In turn, there was relatively little educational material or ways into the field.

This advocacy without concrete means of engagement meant there were a lot of people interested in AI safety without an outlet into which to put their motivation to learn about the field. It turns out, those were the ideal conditions under which to start a course (not that the extremity of this situation is required for every course that will follow).

The first time we opened the AISF course online was partly by accident. The course had been trialled with a couple of groups in Cambridge, and Dewi was gearing up for a larger course in Cambridge when the pandemic happened. Dewi therefore decided to open up applications online, and was (I believe) surprised that 230 people from across the world applied to the second iteration of the course.

Not everyone thought AISF was a good idea

It’s worth highlighting a couple of critiques we faced when we got started, to help address doubts you might face in building up your own educational materials. You might think these critiques are silly, especially in retrospect, but hear me out.

Criticism 1: People could already learn about AI safety [from the source materials] without our course

Many people already working in AI safety had got there by pouring through the materials themselves and building up their own models – indeed, it was the only way you could get involved. Therefore some of those people suspected that there was enough good material out there, organised in a reasonably fine way, for serious people to get involved with the field.

I do think it’s plausible that the type of person that was willing to go through the source materials and understand the problem from first principles was likely to be a successful researcher. There was also little sense in putting lots of people through the course because there were few venues to support people’s continued learning beyond AISF.

I still think running educational courses was valuable for the few folks who were in an excellent position to contribute straight away because:

1. Time efficiency. It’s really hard to make and follow a curriculum by yourself, even if you’re ‘smart’. This costs a lot of time – and the best people will have lots of ways they could spend their time.
2. Visibility. If there’s no course about something, it might be hard to draw attention to the best materials, therefore there’s no guarantee these self-starters stumble upon the most important ideas in your field by trawling through fora.
3. Numbers. Fields need lots of people to work on them, at some point, so it was helpful to build capacity into the field by making it easier to learn about, therefore inviting more people into it.
4. Transparency. Seeing what exists gives others permission to contribute. They will either feel equipped to critique what you present them, or identify gaps that you didn’t present to them.

Criticism 2: our course would raise too much attention to the concept of AGI, and inspire more people to advance AGI before safety techniques have been developed.

I do think it was reasonable to be cautious of promoting the concept of AGI as a powerful technology at the time (pre-ChatGPT). Not many people had considered that something like AGI was in reach, and I do broadly believe in the concept of information hazards and the possibility that our course might lead to more people working on developing AGI than trying to make it safe.

We addressed this concern in 2 ways, at the time:

1. Most applicants expressed a genuine interest in working on AI safety rather than simply learning about the capabilities of AGI systems.
2. The landscape changed quite dramatically after ChatGPT was released, as everyone had heard about AGI and it was being discussed regularly in the news. This meant any additional attention our course would draw to AGI would likely be fairly minor by comparison.

This didn’t fully address everyone’s concerns – indeed at some point you need to make someone unhappy to get things done. We felt it was justified to make this field more accessible by running this course, despite the risk of accelerating dangerous aspects of AI technology.

The science of learning is useful to know for course design

I could write a whole other blog post on the science of learning, and indeed others have. I’ll quickly list off some recommendations here and not go into detail.

I want to use this space to flag that the science of learning will help you to design an excellent, engaging course. Some important concepts:

• Setting clear learning objectives for each class/module, and explicitly explaining how the resources you share relate to those learning objectives.
• Using Bloom’s Taxonomy for understanding what level of complexity learners are ready for.
• Using learning activities that get students using the skills you want them to learn.
• Create opportunities to give students feedback on their exercises and ideas they share in classes. You could also facilitate peer-to-peer feedback, but feedback from an expert is best.

A highly simplified model of the science of learning.

Impact of the AI safety Fundamentals Course

There are few concrete metrics to point to about the value of education. Universities and schools tend to point to what their alumni do next, as evidence that their educational services helped to prepare their students for that. It’s no different for AISF; the best stat we could look for was how many of our alumni took next steps in the relevant field (be it employment, further learning or projects, etc).

Qualitatively, I felt I saw first-hand how the alignment field changed as a result of educating people about the bare basics of what was going on in the fields of AI alignment and governance. It helped bring policymakers up to speed on AI governance, and was the gateway into AI alignment for 1000s of technical people. We were regularly told it raised the bar on the level of conversations happening at job interviews at top alignment organisations.

I’ve come to believe that, whilst hard to directly measure the impact, education is an essential component of field building, and a precursor that accelerates downstream, direct impact.

This won’t come as news to anyone who is impassioned by education. I regularly met enthusiasts for education, and I wish I had known what they know much sooner. 

Generic lessons for education

How education helps build fields

A field is built when people are collectively thinking about a problem or topic, broadly oriented around the same framework. A course is an excellent way to make this happen.

By creating a curriculum you are essentially framing the problems in your field as you see them, and helping others download your model of ‘what’s going on’ more quickly. This can often be a clarifying experience for you too; explaining ideas to others is often a great way to make progress on your own understanding.

It’s quite likely that different people will explain your field in different ways – it’s not necessary (and in fact impossible) to achieve total consensus about your curriculum. However, by laying a stake in the ground you’re helping everyone to make progress. After all, if someone critiques your curriculum, you have generated more engagement.

Benefits of designing courses

In this section I spell out some of the specific benefits of designing and running courses, to you as the designer:

1. Recruitment – if you are looking to hire, a course is a great way to:
   1. Generate strong candidates by providing knowledge to the people with the right skills, but lack of background or motivation, to apply to your jobs.
   2. Discover good candidates by getting to know your participants through your course, and gaining more information about whether working together would be a good fit (for example, by setting assignments as mini work tests – though you should likely be transparent if that’s what you’re doing).
2. Generating knowledge and useful critiques. People who choose to engage with your course will often have useful, existing expertise. During the course, they will likely provide you with useful critiques through discussion, feedback and project submissions.
3. Learning more about the material yourself. Teaching others is an excellent way to learn more about a topic yourself. If you’re still in the process of exploring or figuring out all the details of a topic, creating and teaching a course could benefit you.
4. Scoping and discovering important materials that need to be created to explain your field. Often when designing curricula, we would find that no paper exists explaining the concept we wanted to put across in our course. Mapping out your curriculum helps to identify and scope documents you wish existed, which you could send to people about your field and include in your course.
5. Saving your time. It’s likely that if you’re in a good position to start a course, you are finding yourself having lots of 1-1s where you’re explaining many of the same concepts. A course is a great way to scale knowledge about your field without using up a bunch of your time. To save time, you can forward people who you would otherwise have to speak to 1-1 to your educational materials.
6. Community building. Courses are also a great way to help people find each other. I’ll discuss that in the next section.

There are of course other benefits to participants, namely feeling more knowledgeable and more empowered to contribute to something they care about..

Building Community and Engagement

Running a course rarely stops at putting together materials and publishing them on the internet. In fact, if you do that, it’s quite likely nobody will come across the materials, less still get through them all, and your efforts will be wasted. As a reference, the completion rate for Massively Online Open Courses (MOOCs) is around 20%, whilst for AISF it was closer to 80% (though absolute numbers are important to consider, too).

A good educational course also includes community building and engagement work, for the following reasons:

• Social contagion for your course. People who go through the AISF curriculum in their own time online likely heard about the curriculum from more than one peer, who each told them it was worth their time to take it. That can only happen if a group of people in a similar network have been through the materials. Engaging with existing communities is a good way to ensure you have a critical mass of early advocates for your course.
• Social and peer learning opportunities. It’s important that people have someone to discuss the things they’re learning with others. Furthermore, doing a course as part of a group leads to higher completion rates, through setting a social norm to keep going.
• Building networks for next steps. If your field is at an early stage, it’s likely that there aren’t predefined next steps for people to go onto. Building strong networks of interested people is therefore important because:
  • It supports people in leveraging their existing position to continue to contribute to your field (e.g. a PhD student is able to collaborate with someone they met on the course, even if their professor doesn’t have expertise in your area).
  • It may be important later, because when opportunities do emerge there’s a natural network with which to share that, and people can let each other know about opportunities and keep each other informed about the latest in the field.
• Setting cultural norms. If there are cultural norms around your course that are beneficial to set, this can be done best through face-to-face engagement (e.g. being sensitive about information hazards, adopting a growth mindset, being truth-seeking, etc).

Limitations of field building via educational courses

Imparting fundamental skills takes time

It’s likely that the best way you can contribute if you’ve read this far won’t be to teach people the fundamental skills necessary to contribute to your field (e.g. Machine Learning expertise for AI safety, or international relations for certain parts of AI governance, and so on). Teaching machine learning is a full time job for weeks or months, while AISF was 5 hours / week for 8 weeks.

It’s likely more efficient for you to think hard about your target audience and the requirements for your course. (Remember lesson 1: a space for everyone is a space for no-one). If your course is open to anyone and an undergrad without the necessary skills to contribute takes your course, they still won’t have the skills at the end of the course.

You could potentially use your course to help people identify their skill-gaps and explicitly motivate or support people in taking next steps to close those gaps at the end of the course.

Courses themselves are unlikely to generate interest

People will only apply and invest time in your course if they’re already motivated to learn about the topic.

If there isn’t much interest or basic understanding about your field, it may be better to focus on advocacy first. For example, writing a blog post motivating your field, or giving interesting (but shallow) talks about your field. As an example, most people who took the AISF course had read a book or a few blog posts about AI safety before applying to the course.

Online courses are easy to drop out of

If you run a course online, be aware that they’re easy to drop out of. The completion rate at BlueDot Impact averaged out at about 75%, but for coursera courses it’s often as low as 20%. In all cases, participants get out what they put into the course, and when courses are online it’s easy to take it less seriously or skip bits that seem optional but to you as the course designer, are important (e.g. the exercises).

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Adam Jones (BlueDot Impact) and Chiara Gerosa (Impact Academy) for feedback on a draft of this post.