TLDR:
ENAIS is teaming up with community builders from The Netherlands to seed AIS Netherlands. You can read about the role below, and if you would be interested in founding such an organisation, fill out this expression of interest form. We are currently in discussions with funders about seeding city and national groups across the world, so we would like to get a better sense of the local talent pool that would be interested in starting such an initiative. You can also (anonymously) refer people for us to contact here.
Co-signers:
They've shortened timelines, yes, but what's really the counterfactual here?
"Getting AGI 5 years later with more compute overhang and controlled by people that don't care about the longterm future of humanity because anyone that did ran away" doesn't sound like an obviously better world.
I get their concerns about Google, but I don't get why they emphasize Demis. Makes it seem like there's more to it than "he happens to be DeepMind's CEO atm"
Too bad it's on same day as EAGx Berkeley
How many safety-focused people have left since the board drama now? I count 7, but I might be missing more. Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, Daniel Kokotajlo, Leopold Aschenbrenner, Cullen O'Keefe, Pavel Izmailov, William Saunders.
This is a big deal. A bunch of the voices that could raise safety concerns at OpenAI when things really heat up are now gone. Idk what happened behind the scenes, but they judged now is a good time to leave.
Possible effective intervention: Guaranteeing that if these people break their NDA's, all their legal fees will be compensated for. No idea how sensible this is, so agree/disagree voting encouraged.
Guaranteeing all the safety people that left OpenAI that any legal fees for breaking their NDA would be fully compensated might be a very effective intervention.
Thanks for this post! I've been thinking a lot about AI governance strategies and their robustness/tractability lately, much of which feels like a close match to what you've written here.
For many AI governance strategies, I think we are more clueless than many seem to assume about whether a strategy ends up positively shaping the development of AI or backfiring in some foreseen or unforeseen way. There are many crucial considerations for AI governance strategies, miss or get one wrong and the whole strategy can fall apart, or become actively counterproductive. What I've been trying to do is:
This year's ACX Meetup Everywhere meetup in Eindhoven, Netherlands. Those that stick around until the evening can visit Glow together!
Please join this group chat to find where we're sitting and other communication (if you don't want to, you can instead call me on +31 6 18060550)
I've founded Effective Altruism Eindhoven, which has biweekly meetups in the Hubble cafe on the TU/e campus on Tuesdays. Rationality-themed conversations are more than welcome! There's also an active AI safety subgroup.
If this event is full at some point, there's a meetup in Eindhoven on the same day :)
43. This situation you see when you look around you is not what a surviving world looks like.
A similar argument could have been made during the cold war to argue that nuclear war is inevitable, yet here we are.
Is it conclusive the meetup will be tomorrow? There seemed to be some uncertainty at the Eindhoven meetup...