Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Zach Stein-Perlman
5 min read 3

60

AI safetyAI governanceCollections and resourcesAI evaluations and standardsPublic communication on AI safetyResearch agendas, questions, and project lists
Frontpage

Related: Ideas for AI labs: Reading list. See also: AI labs' statements on governance.

This document is about AI policy ideas. It's largely from an x-risk perspective. Strikethrough denotes sources that I expect are less useful for you to read.

Lists

Lists of government (especially US government) AI policy ideas. I recommend carefully reading the lists in the first ~5 bullets in this list, noticing ideas to zoom in on, and skipping the rest of this section.

Levers

Some sources focus on policy levers rather than particular policy proposals.

Other policy guidance

Desiderata

Some sources focus on abstract desiderata rather than how to achieve them.

Ideas[1]

Policy proposals in the mass media

Responses to government requests for comment

See also

Very non-exhaustive.

This post is largely missing policy levers beyond domestic policy: international relations,[2] international organizations, and standards.

Some sources are roughly sorted within sections by a combination of x-risk-relevance, quality, and influentialness– but sometimes I didn't bother to try to sort them, and I've haven't read all of them.

Please have a low bar to suggest additions, substitutions, rearrangements, etc.

Thanks to Jakub Kraus and Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh for some sources.

Last updated: 10 July 2023.

  1. ^

    - I think these sources each focus on a particular policy idea– I haven't even skimmed all of them
    - Very non-exhaustive
    - Thanks to Sepasspour et al. 2022 and a private list for some sources

  2. ^

    International agreements seem particularly important and neglected.

    One source (not focused on policy ideas or levers): Nuclear Arms Control Verification and Lessons for AI Treaties (Baker 2023).

    Oliver Guest agrees that there are not amazing sources but mentions:

    - CSET on international security in the context of military AI
    - CNAS on international arms control and confidence-building measures for military AI

60

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments3


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
trevor11
0
0
  • Various private lists and works in progress

Will there be a second post or will this post be edited to include those? These omnibuses are extremely valuable and important for preventing people from reinventing the wheel, but the whole point of  centralization of knowledge is centralization of knowledge. If they're living documents, then people might miss new ideas, when ideally they would have a bunch of new potentially game-changing ideas slapped on their desk in a way that they would notice.

Reply
Zach Stein-Perlman3
0
0
  • I'll try to edit this post to include new/newly public sources. (If the number of such sources continues to explode, I'll raise the bar.)
  • This post will generally not include private work, because it's private.

(Edit re MMMaas: done, thanks.)

Reply
MMMaas5
0
0

Thanks for collating this, Zach! Just to note, my 'TAI Governance: a Literature Review' is publicly shareable -- but since we'll be cleaning up the main doc as a report the coming week, could you update the link to this copy? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CDj_sdTzZGP9Tpppy7PdaPs_4acueuNxTjMnAiCJJKs/edit#heading=h.5romymfdade3

Reply
More from Zach Stein-Perlman
84
o3
Zach Stein-Perlman
·
5
5
134
Maybe Anthropic's Long-Term Benefit Trust is powerless
Zach Stein-Perlman
·
21
21
128
Introducing AI Lab Watch
Zach Stein-Perlman
·
23
23
View more
Curated and popular this week
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
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in AI safety
27
Apply to the Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship 2025
Harrison 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
28
Evals projects I'd like to see, and a call to apply to OP's evals RFP
cb
· · 4m read
2
2
23
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
View more