Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Harrison 🔸
3 min read 0

28

AI safetyCareer choiceExistential riskOpportunities to take actionPolicyApplication announcementsFellowships and internshipsAnnouncements and updatesResearch
Frontpage

The Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship has opened applications for an in-person, paid, 8-week Summer Research Fellowship focused on catastrophic AI risk mitigation, taking place from 29th June to 24th August 2025 in Cambridge, UK, and aimed at a variety of aspiring researchers. 

To apply and find out more, please visit the ERA website. The deadline to apply is April 8th, 2025 (11:59pm UTC).

If you are interested in mentoring fellows on this programme, please submit your name, email and research area here, and we will get in touch with you in due course. 

For more information, you can also sign up for our information and application Q&A sessions:

  1. Signup to the info session at 16:30 in UTC on 26th March (Q&A 1)
  2. Signup to the info session at 16:30 in UTC on 1st April (Q&A 2)

If you know other people who would be a good fit, please encourage them to apply (people are more likely to apply if you recommend they do, even if they have already heard of the opportunity!) If you are a leader or organiser of relevant community spaces, we encourage you to post an announcement with a link to this post.

Applications will be reviewed as they are submitted, and we encourage early applications, as offers will be sent out as soon as suitable candidates are found. We will accept applications until April 8th, 2025 (23:59 UTC). 

The Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship is a fantastic opportunity to:

  • Build your portfolio by researching a topic relevant to understanding and mitigating risks from frontier AI (in our 3 research areas of Technical AI Safety, AI Governance, and Technical AI Governance)
  • Receive guidance and develop your research skills, via weekly mentorship from a researcher in the field.
  • Form lasting connections with other fellows who care about mitigating AI risks, while also engaging with local events including discussions and Q&As with experts.

Why we are running this programme 

Our mission as an organisation is to reduce the probability of catastrophic outcomes caused by AI. We believe that one of the key ways to reduce this risk lies in fostering a community of dedicated and knowledgeable AI safety, security, & governance researchers. Through our summer research fellowship programme, we aim to identify and support aspiring researchers in this field, providing them with the resources and the mentorship needed to succeed.

What we provide

  • Full funding: Fellows receive a salary equivalent to £34,125 per year, which will be prorated to the duration of the Fellowship. On top of this, our fellows receive complimentary accommodation, meal provisions during working hours, visa support, and travel expense coverage.
  • Expert mentorship: Fellows will work closely with a mentor on their research agenda for the summer. See our Mentors page to learn about previous mentors (but do note that we match our fellows with mentors once they are accepted, and this list is only indicative to guide brainstorming).
  • Research Support: Many of our alumni have gone on to publish their research in top journals and conferences, and we provide dedicated research management support to help our fellows become strong researchers / policymakers in the field.
  • Community: Fellows are immersed in a living-learning environment. They will have a dedicated desk space at our office in central Cambridge and are housed together at Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
  • Networking and learning opportunities: We assist fellows in developing the necessary skills, expertise, and networks to thrive in an AI security or policy career. We can facilitate introductions to many organisations in the field. In special cases, we also provide extra financial assistance to support impactful career transitions.

What we are looking for

We are excited to support a wide range of research across our focus areas of Technical AI Safety, AI Governance, and Technical AI Governance. See our programme information for more details.

Who we are looking for

Anyone can apply to the fellowship! We are a talent-first programme and care about much more than just credentials. In fact, we are excited to support fellows from a wide range of subject areas who are committed to our mission. There are no formal eligibility restrictions beyond being 18 or older.

We are looking to support proactive individuals from a wide range of subject areas who have a high potential to do impactful work in the future.

Application process 

The first stage consists of essay-style questions. Applicants will then progress through two interview stages before final offers are extended. Successful applicants will be notified by late April, and afterwards we will work with accepted fellows to develop their project ideas and pair them with relevant mentors. 

Questions?

Please check out our Frequently Asked Questions section first. If you have questions about anything else which is not covered in our FAQs, please email us at hello@erafellowship.org.

For more information, you can also sign up for our information and application Q&A sessions:

  1. Signup to the info session at 16:30 in UTC on 26th March (Q&A 1)
  2. Signup to the info session at 16:30 in UTC on 1st April (Q&A 2)

28

0
0
1

Reactions

0
0
1

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
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
Recent opportunities in AI safety
28
Apply to the Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship 2025
Harrison 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
57
Quick nudge to apply to the LTFF grant round (closing on Saturday)
calebp
· · 1m read
7
7
22
Center on Long-Term Risk: Summer Research Fellowship 2025
Center on Long-Term Risk
· · 1m read
0
0
View more