Hide table of contents

Hi!

📜 With the moratorium treaty competition now closed, we extend our best wishes to all participants. Judges are finalising scores for the entries. Winners will be announced this week. You can see all the submissions here.

Stay tuned!


📸 PauseAI protests updates

✊ Throwback to the powerful #PauseAI protests in London on July 13th and July 18th. Advocates gathered outside the FCDO, urging the United Nations Security Council to implement a global pause on the largest AI training runs. Thank you for your support! #PauseAI 📸

📢 Mark your calendars for the upcoming #PauseAI protest in the Netherlands: #PauseAI Protest @ Wijnhaven, The Hague on 11th of August, 16:00 - 17:00Sign up and get details here.


📃 Policy updates

On the policy front, in the past month we focussed on Australia:

Next, we are working on a submission to the NSW inquiry into AI and updating our main campaign policy document.

Do you know of other inquiries? Please let us know. If you want to contribute to the upcoming consultation papers, please respond to this email.


📜Petition updates

🦘 Nik Samoylov's petition (EN5163) has successfully met the requirements for petitions and was recently presented to the House on 31/07/2023. It has been referred to Ed Husic, the Minister for Industry and Science. According to the petition requirements, Ministers have 90 days from its presentation in the House to provide a response.

🦄 For our advocates in the UK, we have an ongoing petition by Greg Colbourn calling for a global moratorium on the development of AI technology due to extinction risks. The petition has garnered 38 signatures so far.


💳 Become a paid subscriber to the campaign

We have just prepared the financial reports for the financial year ended 30 June 2023. In a nutshell, we had AUD 37.33 in the bank at the end of the year. Reports are accessible to paid members.

In the coming months, our expenses will include general upkeep of the campaign as well as a few bursts in paid media. Targeted billboards and audio ads will be back on.

If you are not yet a paid member, please do subscribe.


Thank you for your support! Please share this email with friends.

 

Campaign for AI Safety

campaignforaisafety.org

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This is brilliant. Most people here I imagine disagree, but my inclination is that this might be among the highest EV routes to AI safety.

  1. It can increase publicity and galvanize public support against AI capability improvement.

  2. Legal routes, like the one against Google can have success even with limited pubic support. We saw that recently in new Zealand with the government successfully sued for artificial lowering carbon prices

  3. As the movement grows you might actually get concrete policy success - any slowing down has to be good.

Every important social movement starts somewhere. Keep up the good work!

Awesome! Keep up the good work @Jolyn Khoo  @Nik Samoylov !

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
(Audio version here, or search for "Joe Carlsmith Audio" on your podcast app.) > “There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall?”  > > - C.S. Lewis “The Human Condition,” by René Magritte (Image source here) 1. Introduction Sometimes, my thinking feels more “real” to me; and sometimes, it feels more “fake.” I want to do the real version, so I want to understand this spectrum better. This essay offers some reflections.  I give a bunch of examples of this “fake vs. real” spectrum below -- in AI, philosophy, competitive debate, everyday life, and religion. My current sense is that it brings together a cluster of related dimensions, namely: * Map vs. world: Is my mind directed at an abstraction, or it is trying to see past its model to the world beyond? * Hollow vs. solid: Am I using concepts/premises/frames that I secretly suspect are bullshit, or do I expect them to point at basically real stuff, even if imperfectly? * Rote vs. new: Is the thinking pre-computed, or is new processing occurring? * Soldier vs. scout: Is the thinking trying to defend a pre-chosen position, or is it just trying to get to the truth? * Dry vs. visceral: Does the content feel abstract and heady, or does it grip me at some more gut level? These dimensions aren’t the same. But I think they’re correlated – and I offer some speculations about why. In particular, I speculate about their relationship to the “telos” of thinking – that is, to the thing that thinking is “supposed to” do.  I also describe some tags I’m currently using when I remind myself to “really think.” In particular:  * Going slow * Following curiosity/aliveness * Staying in touch with why I’m thinking about something * Tethering my concepts to referents that feel “real” to me * Reminding myself that “arguments are lenses on the world” * Tuning into a relaxing sense of “helplessness” about the truth * Just actually imagining differ
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