Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by gergo
2 min read 3

28

AI safetyExistential riskOpportunities to take actionCareer choiceBuilding the field of AI safety
Frontpage

Crossposted on The Field Building Blog and Lesswrong.

Some time ago I put out an EOI for people who would consider starting AIS fieldbuilding organisations in key locations, such as Brussels and France.

Since then I have also spent a bit of time thinking about what other organisations would be useful to have in the longtermist, x- and s-risk space, not necessarily in specific locations.

I might write about why I’m specifically excited about these later on, but for now, here is a tentative list:

  • a fieldbuilding organisation aiming at infosecurity folks
  • a fieldbuilding organisation aimed at experienced professionals with a background in (AI) policy
  • org focusing on experienced professionals who are currently on a sabbatical
  • organisation focused on capacity building for s-risks and research on digital sentience
  • fieldbuilding organisation to increase research capacity on post-AGI governance, economic implications of transformative AI, as well as grand challenges
  • AIS communications projects to specific stakeholders, such as policymakers, conservative voters, young people etc.
    • I'm currently fundraising for such a project, if you are interested in collaborating or funding Amplify, get in touch at info[at]amplifyreason.com

 

Subscribe to The Field Building Blog

 

To be clear it's not like these ideas are "mine", I have also read various people mentioning some of these in different places, such as, here, here, and here. You can also read about what some funders have got to say. Now that the gameboard has been flipped, perhaps it's useful to brainstorm again and look for collaborators. Before you jump into something ambitious, please do read the caveats section from this post though!

I also know that there are orgs already working on some of these projects, but I would argue that given just how small the community is, the fieldbuilding space would benefit from more rowing. (In case you are already working in fieldbuilding, Amplify might be able to help you reach an audience outside of the existing EA/AIS space. I think lack of marketing is and has been a big bottleneck for the fieldbuilding space.)

Consider filling out this EOI form if:

  • You are interested in starting one of these projects
  • You are already working on (launching) a similar project and would like to collaborate (perhaps also leave a comment on this post so others are aware).
  • You want to pitch your own idea

I can't promise to assist everyone who signs up, but if I think you're a good fit for a project, I would be happy to at least review your grant application and potentially do more, such as connecting you with others I know in the field. While I don't have extensive experience in fundraising, I do have some, and people have generally found my feedback on proposals useful in the past.

If you're interested in helping others with their projects, consider leaving a comment on this post explaining how you can assist!

What fieldbuilding projects would you like (or not like) to see?

28

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments3


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Davidmanheim5
0
0

On AIxCyber field building, you might be interested in knowing about Heron, which launched this past year with Openphil support.

Reply
gergo1
0
0

Thanks for sharing, I haven't come across them before!

Reply
Dušan D. Nešić (Dushan)5
0
0
1

I would like to see orgs trying to tackle Gradual Disempowerment productively, I am unsure what the work would look like, but it is definitely impactful, likely at least somewhat tractable.

Reply
More from gergo
63
Why AI Safety Camp struggles with fundraising (FBB #2)
gergo
· · 8m read
10
10
42
Your group needs all the help it can get (FBB #1)
gergo
· · 5m read
6
6
37
Introducing The Field Building Blog (FBB #0)
gergo
· · 3m read
3
3
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
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
TL;DR In a sentence:  We are shifting our strategic focus to put our proactive effort towards helping people work on safely navigating the transition to a world with AGI, while keeping our existing content up. In more detail: We think it’s plausible that frontier AI companies will develop AGI by 2030. Given the significant risks involved, and the fairly limited amount of work that’s been done to reduce these risks, 80,000 Hours is adopting a new strategic approach to focus our efforts in this area.   During 2025, we are prioritising: 1. Deepening our understanding as an organisation of how to improve the chances that the development of AI goes well 2. Communicating why and how people can contribute to reducing the risks 3. Connecting our users with impactful roles in this field 4. And fostering an internal culture which helps us to achieve these goals We remain focused on impactful careers, and we plan to keep our existing written and audio content accessible to users. However, we are narrowing our focus as we think that most of the very best ways to have impact with one’s career now involve helping make the transition to a world with AGI go well.   This post goes into more detail on why we’ve updated our strategic direction, how we hope to achieve it, what we think the community implications might be, and answers some potential questions. Why we’re updating our strategic direction Since 2016, we've ranked ‘risks from artificial intelligence’ as our top pressing problem. Whilst we’ve provided research and support on how to work on reducing AI risks since that point (and before!), we’ve put in varying amounts of investment over time and between programmes. We think we should consolidate our effort and focus because:   * We think that AGI by 2030 is plausible — and this is much sooner than most of us would have predicted 5 years ago. This is far from guaranteed, but we think the view is compelling based on analysis of the current flow of inputs into AI
Recent opportunities in AI safety
35
AIS Netherlands is looking for a Founding Executive Director (EOI form)
7 authors
· · 5m read
3
3
20
Applications Open: Pivotal 2025 Q3 Research Fellowship
2 authors
· · 2m read
0
0
57
Quick nudge to apply to the LTFF grant round (closing on Saturday)
calebp
· · 1m read
7
7
View more