This is a special post for quick takes by aviv. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Comment Permalink
It would may be helpful to grow a cross-national/ethnic overarching identity around "wisdom and doing good". EA does this is a bit, but is heavily constrained to the technocratic. While that is it useful subcomponent of that broader identity, it can push away people who share or aspire the underlying ideals of (1) "Doing good as a core goal of existence" and (2) "Being wise about how one chooses to do good"—but who don't share the disposition or culture of most EA's. Even the name itself can be a turnoff—it sound intellectual and elitist.
Having a named identity which is broader than EA, but which contains it, could be incredibly helpful for connecting across neurodiverse divides in daily work, and could be incredibly valuable as a cross-cutting cleavage in national/ethnic/ etc. divides in conflict environments, if this can encompass a broad enough population over time.
I'm not sure what that name might be in English, or if it makes more sense to just expand meaning of EA, but it may be worth thinking about this, and consciously growing a movement around that with aligned movements that perhaps get at other "lenses of wisdom" that focus on best utilizing/growing resources for broad positive impact.
Assuming misaligned AI is a risk, is technical AI alignment enough, or do you need joint AI/Societal alignment?
My work has involved trying to support risk awareness and coordination similar to what has been suggested for AI alignment. For example, for mitigating harms around synthetic media / “deepfakes” (now rebranded to generative AI) and it worked for a few years with all the major orgs and most relevant research groups.
But then new orgs jumped in to fill the capability gap! (e.g. eleuther, stability, etc.)
Due to demand and for potentially good reasons: those capabilities which can harm people can also help people. The ultimate result is the proliferation/access/democratization of AI capabilities in the face of risks.
Question 1) What would stop the same thing from happening for technical AI safety alignment?[1]
I’m currently skeptical that this sort of coordination is possible without some addressing deeper societal incentives (AKA reward functions; e.g. around profit/power/attention maximization, self-dealing, etc.) and related multi-principal-agent challenges. This joint/ai societal alignment or holistic alignment would seem to be a prerequisite to the actual implementation of technical alignment.[2]
Question 2) Am I missing something here? If one assumes that misaligned AI is a threat worth resourcing, what is the likelihood of succeeding at AI alignment longterm without also succeeding at 'societal alignment'?
Curated and popular this week
·
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up. Message me if you'd like the code :)
Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer.
TLDR
* Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.”
* Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling.
* I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time.
* If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t.
* I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value.
1. Background: The Happiness Paradox
Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong.
This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds.
Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations:
* Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
·
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress:
* OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI"
* Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years"
* Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January.
What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028?
In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years.
In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning.
In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks.
We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.
On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.
No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote).
This means that, while the compa
·
SUMMARY:
ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate.
Donate to ALLFED
FULL ARTICLE:
I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.
Read our funding appeal
At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety.
Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
Assuming misaligned AI is a risk, is technical AI alignment enough, or do you need joint AI/Societal alignment?
My work has involved trying to support risk awareness and coordination similar to what has been suggested for AI alignment. For example, for mitigating harms around synthetic media / “deepfakes” (now rebranded to generative AI) and it worked for a few years with all the major orgs and most relevant research groups.
But then new orgs jumped in to fill the capability gap! (e.g. eleuther, stability, etc.)
Due to demand and for potentially good reasons: those capabilities which can harm people can also help people. The ultimate result is the proliferation/access/democratization of AI capabilities in the face of risks.
I’m currently skeptical that this sort of coordination is possible without some addressing deeper societal incentives (AKA reward functions; e.g. around profit/power/attention maximization, self-dealing, etc.) and related multi-principal-agent challenges. This joint/ai societal alignment or holistic alignment would seem to be a prerequisite to the actual implementation of technical alignment.[2]
This is assuming you can even get the major players on board, which isn't true for e.g. misaligned recommender systems that I've also worked on (on the societal side).
This would also be generally good for the world! E.g. to address externalities, political dysfunction, corruption, etc.