Apply here. Title: Research Assistant for AI Standards Development Ideal start date: December 2022 Hours: 20-40 hours/week Compensation: $30/hour to $50/hour, depending on experience and qualifications Work location: Remote Reports to: Tony Barrett, BERI Senior Policy Analyst For best consideration, please apply by Monday November 7th, 2022, 5pm Eastern Time....
Updated 13 September 2022 with a link to our arXiv paper and corrections to out-of-date items This is a linkpost to our working paper “Towards AI Standards Addressing AI Catastrophic Risks: Actionable-Guidance and Roadmap Recommendations for the NIST AI Risk Management Framework”, which we co-authored with our UC Berkeley colleagues...
Title: Research Assistant for AI Standards Development
Ideal start date: December 2022
Hours: 20-40 hours/week
Compensation: $30/hour to $50/hour, depending on experience and qualifications
Work location: Remote
Reports to: Tony Barrett, BERI Senior Policy Analyst
For best consideration, please apply by Monday November 7th, 2022, 5pm Eastern Time. Applications received after that date may also be considered, but only after applications that met the deadline.
Supporting work planned by Tony Barrett and UC Berkeley colleagues to develop an AI-standards “profile” with best practices for developers of cutting-edge, increasingly general purpose AI, building on the ideas in Section 4 of the paper by Barrett and colleagues, “Actionable Guidance for High-Consequence AI Risk Management: Towards Standards Addressing AI Catastrophic Risks”.... (read 457 more words →)
Updated 13 September 2022 with a link to our arXiv paper and corrections to out-of-date items
This is a linkpost to our working paper “Towards AI Standards Addressing AI Catastrophic Risks: Actionable-Guidance and Roadmap Recommendations for the NIST AI Risk Management Framework”, which we co-authored with our UC Berkeley colleagues Jessica Newman and Brandie Nonnecke. Here is a link:
We seek feedback from readers considering catastrophic risks as part of their work on AI safety and governance. Please email feedback to Tony Barrett at anthony.barrett@berkeley.edu.
If you are providing feedback on the draft guidance in this document, in addition to any comments via email, it would be... (read 656 more words →)
Adding on to Mauricio's idea: Also explore partnering with companies that offer a well-recognized, high-quality package of mainstream "trustworthy AI services" -- e.g., addressing bias, privacy issues, and other more mainstream concerns -- where you have comparative advantage on safety/alignment concerns and they have comparative advantage on the more mainstream concerns. Together with a partner, you could provide a more comprehensive offering. (That's part of the value proposition for them. Also, of course, be sure to highlight the growing importance of safety/alignment issues, and the expertise you'd bring.) Then you wouldn't have to compete in the areas where they have comparative advantage.