Hide table of contents
This is a linkpost for https://www.aipolicyideas.com/

Executive Summary 

  • AIPolicyIdeas.com is a new database that compiles AI policy ideas from various sources. It’s intended to help AI policy practitioners and researchers quickly review high-impact, high-feasibility AI policy ideas, inform decisions on what to push for or research, and identify gaps in knowledge for future work. (Alternate link for if any issues arise with the AIPolicyIdeas.com URL.) 
  • This was created relatively quickly. Users are encouraged to conduct their own research and analysis before making any decisions. 
  • Submit ideas through this form
  • If you’re working on existential-risk-relevant AI policy or related research, request access to the database via this form
    • Other people can also use GCR Policy’s related public database.
    • Approval for accessing the AI policy ideas database is not guaranteed. We appreciate your understanding if your application is not approved.

 

We are excited to announce the launch of AIPolicyIdeas.com, a database compiling AI policy ideas from various sources across the longtermist AI governance community and beyond. The database prioritizes inclusion of policy ideas that may help reduce catastrophic risk from AI and may be implementable in the US in the near- or medium-term (in the next ~5-10 years). The database includes policy ideas of varying levels of expected impact, clarity about how impactful they’d be, and feasibility. 

The ideas were curated by Abi Olvera from various sources such as Google Docs, the GCR Policy database, individual submissions, and public reports. For most ideas, we have included information on its source, relevant topic area, relevant U.S. agency, as well as loose ratings estimating expected levels of impact, feasibility, and specificity, and degree of confidence/certainty.

Collection Process: Abi started off with a collection of lists of AI policy ideas from personal Google Docs, contacts, conversations, and public reports. To avoid redundancy, ideas were only added if they contained unique ideas not already on the database. The two largest sources of AI ideas were RP’s Survey on intermediate goals in AI governance and ideas shared by the GCR Policy team. Additional ideas will be gradually added from similar sources and a form for idea submission.

Loose Ratings: To help sort the ideas, we used a loose five-point scale for impact, confidence in our impact assessment, feasibility, and specificity. These ratings were assigned by the original author, the GCR Policy evaluation team, or Abi. However, the ratings were not rigorously assessed and come from various sources, including different assessors with their biases.

Note that most choices about what to include in the database and what ratings to give were made by Abi alone, without someone else reviewing that.

Negative Impacts Not Well Accounted For: We want to make it clear that while we have included a range of policy ideas in this database, some may have lower confidence and unclear levels of expected impact. Therefore, potential negative impacts are not well represented in this database. We encourage users to exercise caution when considering ideas, particularly those with uncertain impacts, and to conduct their research and analysis before making any decisions.

Flag if You’re Researching or Available for Expertise on an Idea: We hope this database will serve as a useful resource for effective policymaking and research that can help make a positive impact on society. Researchers and policy practitioners can engage with the database by reviewing ideas, filtering them by relevant agency, and adding their names to the "Person Researching or Familiar With" column to collaborate with others. Users can also help keep the database up-to-date by sharing relevant ideas through the provided form.

Please reach out to me if you'd like to add a large collection to this database or have recommendations/suggestions for improvement.

Acknowledgements

This is a blog post from Rethink Priorities–a think tank dedicated to informing decisions made by high-impact organizations and funders across various cause areas. The author is Abi Olvera. Thanks to Amanda El-Dakhakhni for their guidance on this project and to Michael Aird, Ashwin Acharya, John Croxton, Markus Anderljung, Rumtin Sepasspour, Marie Buhl, Alex Lintz, Max Rauker, Renan Araujo, Emma Bluemke, Rose Hadshar, and many others for their helpful feedback.


If you are interested in RP’s work, please visit our research database and subscribe to our newsletter.

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Seems like a great initiative, but what’s the rationale behind not having the database publicly available?

There already seems to be a strong publicly available database: GCR’s. We actually synced our publicly-available AI policies ideas to their database while working on this, strengthening GCR’s public database even more. This specific database allows for sharing of ideas that aren’t ready for prime-time, and that wouldn’t have been shared had they been meant for public dissemination. For example, this might be ideas that people are investigating or would like for folks to investigate, but no public report exists. I reviewed a lot of Google Docs that were previously not shared with a large groups of people. This expands access to that niche.

Just in case it is helpful, and I guess this might have been an inspiration for this excellent project: In the climate space, organizations like PCAP have made concrete, tactical plans that a new US president could implement right away without even congressional action. I do not know the details and do not know how successful these plans have been or how pivotal they have been in getting certain policies in place. But it seems at first glance like it is super useful. I imagine a future where some warning shot with AI happens and state leaders are looking around for what they can do right away. I feel like something like this might be very valuable in such a future.

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
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
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while