The main issue I find with this is that those "standout" charities should be treated as possible future top charities, and not publishing an equivalent list might make it harder for them to become so.
I think the best way for this kind of thing would be if some important donor (who they may know personally already) invites them directly to talk to GiveWell, for example, rather than us trying to sell the idea. Personal connections are the best way I can think of. And then books, some events... all help a bit, but I'd start with who they know.
I think you can still publish in conferences, and I have seen that at least AAAI has the topic of safety and trustworthiness between their areas of interest. I would say then that this is not the main issue?
Creating a good journal seems like a good thing to do, but I think it addresses a bit different problem, "how to align researchers incentive with publishing quality results", not necessarily getting them excited about AIS.
I agree that the creation of incentives is a good framing for the problem. I wanted to notice some things though:
What about creating academic institutes in reputable universities to tackle important problems, eg similar to FHI or CSER, creating research prizes, and sponsoring conferences. I'm mostly thinking about AI Safety, but it may be useful in other areas too.
I've seen that you've received a comment prize on this. Congratulations! I have found it interesting.
I was wondering: you give these two reasons for rejecting a funding application
My question is: what method would you use to evaluate the track record of someone who has not done a Ph.D. in AI Safety, but rather on something like Physics (my case :) )? Do you expect the applicant to have some track record in AI Safety research?
I do not plan on applying for funding on the short term, but I think I would find some intuition on this valuable. I also ask because I find it hard to calibrate myself on the quality of my own research.
I am grateful for people like Jaime Sevilla who always have time to listen and give advice and help others in the community.
I just posted another article I found on average publication rates in Norway for different positions, ages, fields and gender.
I would say you basically cannot get tenure if you don't get a PhD, so dropouts are not taken into account in any of the previous statistics as far as I understood them. All this metrics are of the kind of: x% of PhD alumni got tenure, or similar.
I actually agree that taking into account the private sector could help, but I am much less certain about the freedom they give you to research those topics, beyond the usual suspects. That was why I was focussing on academia.
I'd like to know if we could inscribe a bit latter than the 12th of October. In Madrid we are opening an university group but it is not set up yet.