Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by Manfred Kohler
2 min read 0

1

Existential riskGlobal health & developmentOpportunities to take actionPolicyAnnouncements and updatesInternational relationsOpinionRequests (open)
Frontpage

The Regulatory Institute has developed a draft Convention on Existential Risks. You are kindly invited:

- to comment on the preliminary draft by mail to manager@regulatoryinstitute.org.

- to launch a lobby initiative in favour of such a convention, or 

- to create a dedicated organisation lobbying in favour of such a convention.

Here are a few reasons why such a convention would be helpful and better suited to address existential risks than the current patchwork of conventions dealing with different types of ordinary risks:

  • With today's rapidly evolving technologies, new existential risks can emerge at any time, while negotiations for conventions take many years. A generic existential risk convention would prepare us for any newly emerging existential risk. The risk of coming too late with a new risk-specific convention would be avoided.
  • To increase efficiency, mechanisms for existential risks should be harmonised across sectors, and such harmonisation can hardly be achieved via different international public law instruments.
  • There might be scenarios of borderline and combined existential risks that do not clearly fall under one or the other ordinary risk convention or other instrument.
  • International agreements dealing with risks take as a basis normal risks and not those that threaten the existence of humankind. Accordingly, the agreements are strongly based on the right of sovereignty and in particular territorial integrity of states. Very invasive international measures are therefore not permitted and existential risks are thus not appropriately addressed. States might be more ready to give up state sovereignty for an existential risks convention than for ordinary global risk conventions, as we will see in the following. If so, existential risks could be better addressed by a dedicated existential risks convention because more invasive measures could be accepted in the context of existential risks than in the context of an ordinary international agreement.
  • A dedicated Existential Risks Convention could better cover inhabited areas that are de facto outside any state control. There are areas on earth that formally belong to a state, but de facto are outside any kind of control by a recognised state. Furthermore, more than half of the globe’s surface is outside any state control for at sea outside the zones claimed by states. Laboratories on vessels under the flag of a weak state navigating on the high sea or platforms erected in international shallow waters can operate without any effective state control, whilst modern gene-editing methods (CRISPR-Cas) do not require large facilities. Hence, surveillance needs to be established for the oceans as well.

Please have a look at the draft Convention on Existential Risks to check the possible content of such a convention.

Please share this post with others who might be interested in giving a follow-up to it, namely by lobbying in favour of such a convention. [The Regulatory Institute is not in a position to take over that role.]

1

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
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
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
19
Hiring pre-docs
Eva
· · 1m read
0
0
113
USAID Aid Freeze - Bridge Fund established - Donate now for immediate relief
James&Joe
· · 1m read
15
15
31
Impact in Global Development: A Discussion Series
DavidNash
· · 5m read
1
1
View more