If I calculated correct, in the fully funded version, stipends would be 76% of the cost. Not quite >80% but close. I think I agree that stipends is not much more than than 20% of the value.
Basically I agree with you that stipends are the least cost effective part of AISC. This is why stipends are lowest on the funding priority.
However it is possible for stipend to be less necessary than the rest, but still worth paying. They are in the budget because, if someone wants to fund it, we would like to hand out stipends.
I think giving stipends to low participants from low income countries are probably cost effective, but it's probably better to prioritise runway for future camps rather than stipends for everyone else. If you know any donors who would like to earmark their donation this way, or any other way, tell them to contact us.
I you read this post and you decide that the reason why AISC is not getting funded, are not good reasons for not funding AISC, then you have a donation opportunity!
Unless donors don’t care about optics at all, paying Remmelt’s salary is a difficult ask.
There is an easy fix to this. You can donate anonymously.
Perhaps they could add an appendix to their funding proposal where they answer some common objections they would expect people to have
Correctly guessing what misconception others will have is hard. But discussions on earlier drafts on this post, did inspire us to start drafting something like that. Thanks.
A colleague of mine said that [if you want to attract high-profile research leads], “you are only as strong as your weakest project” - which I thought was well put.
We're not trying to attract high profile research leads. We're trying to start worthwhile projects and collaborations that would otherwise not have happened. If a high-profile researcher want's minions/mentees/collaborators, they don't need AISC, and I don't mind if they use some other recourse (e.g. SPAR, MATS, posting on LW) to find people.
Most of these suggestions are based on speculations. I'd like a bit more evidence that it would actually make a difference, before re-structuring. Funders are welcome to reach out to us.
Responding to my self.
There is one thing (that is mentioned in the post) we know is getting in the way of funding, which is Remmelt's image. But there wouldn't be and AISC without Remmelt.
I don't expect pretending to be two different programs would help much.
However, donating anonymously is an option. We have had anonymous donations in the past from people who don't want to entangle their reputation with ours.
Donors want to know that if they donate to keep it alive, you're going to restructure the program towards something more financially viable
Most of these suggestions are based on speculations. I'd like a bit more evidence that it would actually make a difference, before re-structuring. Funders are welcome to reach out to us.
Funding is currently especially bad. It's possible that if AISC can just survive a bit longer, things will get better.
AISC has survived each year since the program started in 2017. Which means just doing what we think is the best program, has a pretty good track record of being funded.
I think it would be valuable for AI Safety Camp to refresh its website in order to make it look more professional and polished. The easiest way to accomplish this would be to make it a project in the next round.
No it wouldn't. Leading a project is a lot of work, significantly more work than it's worth putting into our website, and we're almost guaranteed to end up with something that is significantly higher work to maintain. We recently moved from WordPress to Google Site because it's the lowest effort platform to work with.
I just heard that CEA has a policy that they don't want events (in this case an EAGx) published to early on their webpage. If true this is absolutely idiotic. As an organiser I'd like to avoid collisions, and I naively assumed I'd be able to find the dates for upcoming EAGs and EAGxs on the EAG website, but apparently not.
I haven't verified with CEA that this in fact their policy, and that isn't just a misunderstanding. But it is the case that EAGxNordics 2025 is currently announced by EA Sweden (since at least Dec 6), but not yet CEA.
I think EA should have leadership that at minimum don't stop the the flow of information. But I don't know what to do about this. I don't expect CEA to listen. If they where the typ of org that did that, things would look different.
What caused the restriction?
I'm noticing I'm confused. I have no hypothesis for what could case that sort of restriction.
If I calculated correct, in the fully funded version, stipends would be 76% of the cost. Not quite >80% but close. I think I agree that stipends is not much more than than 20% of the value.
Basically I agree with you that stipends are the least cost effective part of AISC. This is why stipends are lowest on the funding priority.
However it is possible for stipend to be less necessary than the rest, but still worth paying. They are in the budget because, if someone wants to fund it, we would like to hand out stipends.
I think giving stipends to low participants from low income countries are probably cost effective, but it's probably better to prioritise runway for future camps rather than stipends for everyone else. If you know any donors who would like to earmark their donation this way, or any other way, tell them to contact us.
I you read this post and you decide that the reason why AISC is not getting funded, are not good reasons for not funding AISC, then you have a donation opportunity!
There is an easy fix to this. You can donate anonymously.
Donation link
Correctly guessing what misconception others will have is hard. But discussions on earlier drafts on this post, did inspire us to start drafting something like that. Thanks.
We're not trying to attract high profile research leads. We're trying to start worthwhile projects and collaborations that would otherwise not have happened. If a high-profile researcher want's minions/mentees/collaborators, they don't need AISC, and I don't mind if they use some other recourse (e.g. SPAR, MATS, posting on LW) to find people.
Responding to my self.
There is one thing (that is mentioned in the post) we know is getting in the way of funding, which is Remmelt's image. But there wouldn't be and AISC without Remmelt.
I don't expect pretending to be two different programs would help much.
However, donating anonymously is an option. We have had anonymous donations in the past from people who don't want to entangle their reputation with ours.
No it wouldn't. Leading a project is a lot of work, significantly more work than it's worth putting into our website, and we're almost guaranteed to end up with something that is significantly higher work to maintain. We recently moved from WordPress to Google Site because it's the lowest effort platform to work with.
I just heard that CEA has a policy that they don't want events (in this case an EAGx) published to early on their webpage. If true this is absolutely idiotic. As an organiser I'd like to avoid collisions, and I naively assumed I'd be able to find the dates for upcoming EAGs and EAGxs on the EAG website, but apparently not.
I haven't verified with CEA that this in fact their policy, and that isn't just a misunderstanding. But it is the case that EAGxNordics 2025 is currently announced by EA Sweden (since at least Dec 6), but not yet CEA.
I think EA should have leadership that at minimum don't stop the the flow of information. But I don't know what to do about this. I don't expect CEA to listen. If they where the typ of org that did that, things would look different.
At this writing www.aisafety.camp goes to our new website while aisafety.camp goes to our old website. We're working on fixing this.
If you want to spread information about AISC, please make sure to link to our new webpage, and not the old one.
I can't find the disclaimer. Not saying it isn't there. But it should be obvious from just skimming the page, since that is what most people will do.
I don't think it's too 'woo'/new age-y. Lot's of EAs are meditators. There are literally meditation sessions happening at EAG London this week.
Also, Qualia Research Institute (qri.org) is EA or at least EA adjacent.
(What org is or isn't EA is pretty vague)