Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by James Faville, Center on Long-Term Risk
4 min read 2

52

AI safetyCareer choiceOpportunities to take actionApplication announcementsS-riskCenter on Long-Term RiskCooperative AIFellowships and internshipsIntroductory fellowship
Frontpage

Center on Long-Term Risk (CLR) is accepting applications to the next iteration of our introductory fellowship. We are now planning to run two related programs: the CLR Foundations Course and the CLR S-Risk Seminars.[1]

The CLR Foundations Course will introduce people to CLR’s research on s-risk reduction. Apply by Wednesday November 27th, 23:59 Pacific Time.

Apply to the CLR Foundations Course

The CLR S-Risk Seminars will dive deeper into different priority cause areas within s-risk reduction and is intended for people who have completed the CLR Foundations Course or have a similar level of context. 

Register your interest for the CLR S-Risk Seminars

What topics does the CLR Foundations Course discuss?

The Foundations Course is designed to introduce participants to CLR’s research on how transformative AI (TAI) might be involved in the creation of large amounts of suffering (s-risks). Our priority areas for addressing these risks include work on multiagent AI safety, AI governance, epistemology, risks from malevolent or fanatical actors, and macrostrategy.

We recommend people consider Center for Reducing Suffering’s S-risk Introductory Fellowship if they are interested in learning about work on s-risks beyond these priority areas, and consider BlueDot’s AI Safety courses if they are interested in learning about existential risks from TAI.

Note that some prior familiarity with discourse surrounding TAI and AI safety will be helpful.

Who are these programs a good fit for?

We think the Foundations Course and S-Risk Seminars will be most useful for you if you are interested in reducing s-risk through contributions to CLR’s priority areas, and are seriously considering making this a priority for your career. They could also be useful if you are already working in an area that overlaps with CLR’s priorities (e.g. AI governance, AI alignment), and are interested in ways you can help reduce s-risks in the course of your current work.

We recommend those interested in our Summer Research Fellowship first take part in the Foundations Course and an S-Risk Seminar, though participation is not a prerequisite. This way you have a better sense of what work on our priority areas involves, and are better able to “hit the ground running” if accepted.

There might be more idiosyncratic reasons to apply and the criteria above are intended as a guide rather than strict criteria.

Foundations Course

The CLR Foundations Course will be most useful for you if you have not yet interacted extensively with CLR, e.g., you have talked with us about s-risks for less than 10 hours.

S-Risk Seminars

The CLR S-Risk Seminars are most useful for people who are already familiar with CLR’s thinking on the most pressing sources of s-risk, and have some rough idea of what they might be the best fit for work on. These programs will be more technical and may require domain-specific knowledge or skills as a prerequisite. They will only be open to people who have either first done the Foundations Course, or have an equivalent amount of context.[2]

When and how long are these programs?

Foundations Course

The upcoming Foundations Course will take place between Monday December 9th and Friday January 18th, with a two week break between Saturday December 21st and Sunday January 5th.

Applications closeWednesday November 27th, 23:59 Pacific Time
Offers & logistics sent outBy end of day Thursday December 5th
Week 1Week of Monday December 9th
Week 2Week of Monday December 16th
Week 3Week of Monday January 6th
Week 4Week of Monday January 13th

Some potential participants may have schedules that do not permit them to join group discussion calls. It’s likely possible to participate in the core program asynchronously; just note this on your application.

S-Risk Seminars

We are not yet sure what format the S-Risk Seminars will follow[3], or how many will be run. Likely topics for specialised programs include:

  • S-risk-motivated AI governance
  • Malevolence and fanaticism
  • Game-theoretic approaches to AI conflict mitigation
  • Epistemic considerations for s-risk reduction

We intend to customise seminar offerings based on participant availability, background, and interest.

How do I apply to these programs?

The application form for the CLR Foundations Course is here. The application deadline is Wednesday November 27th, 23:59 Pacific Time. If you do not have time to submit an application by this deadline but are interested in participating, please contact us (the earlier the better) and we may be able to accommodate your needs.

We are not yet accepting applications for the CLR S-Risk Seminars.

If you are interested in a S-Risk Seminar but have sufficient context to skip the Foundations Course, we encourage you to fill out this expression of interest form and we will be in touch soon.

We will also likely run another iteration of the Foundations Course in Spring 2025. If you would like to be notified about these or future introductory programs, please sign-up for updates here.

I have questions!

If you have any questions about these programs or are uncertain whether to apply to the Foundations Course, please leave a comment here or reach out to james.faville@longtermrisk.org.

 

  1. ^

     These programs will replace our previous “S-Risk Introductory Fellowship”, which covered elements of both the Foundations Course and the S-Risk Seminars. The S-Risk Seminars will cover additional content that was not in the S-Risk Introductory Fellowship, however, and so could be a good fit for people who have previously completed the S-Risk Introductory Fellowship.

  2. ^

    E.g. from having talked to CLR extensively, having done a previous round of our S-risk Introductory Fellowship, or from having done our Summer Research Fellowship.

  3. ^

    We are considering a 3-6 week format structure similar to the Foundations Course, as well as more intensive multi-day formats. 

52

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments2


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Jakub Krys2
0
0

Thanks for putting this together, looks great! Just to clarify - is the CRS S-risk Introductory Fellowship considered sufficient context to skip your Foundations Course and go straight for the Seminars?

Reply
James Faville5
1
0

Thanks for checking - it's not, as the CRS S-risk Introductory Fellowship doesn't go into sufficient detail on some of the risks that CLR prioritises. I've added this to the seminar EOI form now.

I think the CRS S-risk Introductory Fellowship and CLR Foundations Course are pretty complementary. We're taking a more targeted / object-level approach of mostly discussing a few specific risks CLR prioritises. We won't spend significant time on the broader overview of s-risks and reasons for prioritising them that the CRS fellowship focuses on.

Reply
More from James Faville
33
The hidden complexity of “moral circles”
James Faville
· · 34m read
3
3
60
What posts you are planning on writing?
Q
2 authors
· · 1m read
103
103
View more
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
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
In my past year as a grantmaker in the global health and wellbeing (GHW) meta space at Open Philanthropy, I've identified some exciting ideas that could fill existing gaps. While these initiatives have significant potential, they require more active development and support to move forward.  The ideas I think could have the highest impact are:  1. Government placements/secondments in key GHW areas (e.g. international development), and 2. Expanded (ultra) high-net-worth ([U]HNW) advising Each of these ideas needs a very specific type of leadership and/or structure. More accessible options I’m excited about — particularly for students or recent graduates — could involve virtual GHW courses or action-focused student groups.  I can’t commit to supporting any particular project based on these ideas ahead of time, because the likelihood of success would heavily depend on details (including the people leading the project). Still, I thought it would be helpful to articulate a few of the ideas I’ve been considering.  I’d love to hear your thoughts, both on these ideas and any other gaps you see in the space! Introduction I’m Mel, a Senior Program Associate at Open Philanthropy, where I lead grantmaking for the Effective Giving and Careers program[1] (you can read more about the program and our current strategy here). Throughout my time in this role, I’ve encountered great ideas, but have also noticed gaps in the space. This post shares a list of projects I’d like to see pursued, and would potentially want to support. These ideas are drawn from existing efforts in other areas (e.g., projects supported by our GCRCB team), suggestions from conversations and materials I’ve engaged with, and my general intuition. They aren’t meant to be a definitive roadmap, but rather a starting point for discussion. At the moment, I don’t have capacity to more actively explore these ideas and find the right founders for related projects. That may change, but for now, I’m interested in
Recent opportunities in AI safety
15
Applications Open: Pivotal 2025 Q3 Research Fellowship
2 authors
· · 2m read
0
0
7
ML4Good West & Central Europe | Applications Open
carolinaollive
· · 2m read
1
1
25
Meridian Cambridge Visiting Researcher Programme: Turn AI safety ideas into funded projects in one week!
Meridian
· · 2m read
3
3
View more