Update on establishment of Cambridge’s Centre for Study of Existential Risk
We’ve been lucky to get a lot of support from the academic and existential risk community for the CSER centre. In addition to CRASSH, Cambridge’s Centre for Science and Policy will provide support in making policy-relevant links, and may co-host and co-publicise events. Luke Muehlhauser, MIRI’s Executive Director, has been very supportive and has provided valuable advice, and has generously offered to direct some of MIRI’s volunteer support towards CSER tasks. We also expect to get valuable support from the growing community around FHI.
From where I’m sitting, CSER’s successful launch is looking very promising. The timeline on our research programmes, however, is still a little more uncertain. If we’re successful with the European Research Council, we can expect to be hiring a full research team next spring. If not, it may take a little longer, but we’re exploring a number of different opportunities in parallel and are feeling confident. The support of the existential risk community continues to be invaluable.
Thanks,
Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh
Academic Manager, Future of Humanity Institute
Acting Academic Manager, Cambridge Centre for Study of Existential Risk.
This is excellent news. I look forward to the invigorating effects of competition between the greatest university in the world and another university.
You sound like you’re trying to be sarcastic, but I don’t actually know what you’re trying to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford%E2%80%93Cambridge_rivalry
It’s not at all sarcasm. I do think this is excellent news, I do think competition is (in standard cases) an excellent thing, and I do think that one of the universities is excellent.
I must admit it leaves me in a bit of a quandry. Now that I’ve got a foot in both camps, I have no idea who it’s safe to support in the annual Water Polo and Tiddlywinks Intervarsity Grudge Match.
Currently this post has “125% positive” votes. I’m happy to see so much interest in x-risk reduction!
Earlier it was acting like it had −1 downvote. It says 100% positive now. Does anyone know whether the problem got fixed, or if someone just downvoted it?
A video lecture series? That would be great to have on YouTube.
And would provide awesome source material for an RSA animate style effort.
We’ll make sure to get high-quality recordings.
In the meantime, the FHI’s youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/FHIOxford/videos) may be of interest (talks from Tegmark, Bostrom, Armstrong, Sandberg, Yudkowsky, Omohundro, plus a recent animation of Bostrom’s “Fable of the Dragon Tyrant”).
The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant cartoon did make it to reddit with moderate upvotes IIRC.
How’d it go?
Unfortunately it got to a very late stage but was not funded. While reviewers ranked it very highly, it was always a long shot—we were asking for a lot of money for what is not a “traditional” academic discipline. However, we think that there are several foundations that might be inclined to support the type of research programme proposed—we aim to submit proposals to these early this year.
(Note: we had the same result with an Arts and Humanities Research Counciul grant submitted this fall—highly-ranked but ultimately unsuccessful. Also should be good material for further applications).
It is a little bit strange that organizers could not donate at least some money to the project or invest their time in it as volonteers. In result we see more fighting for funds than actual x-risks resistance. The same problem plagues other x-risk organizations, most of all Lifeboat foundation. By the way most notable work on x-risks was done without any visable funding, I mean articles of Bostrom and Yudkowsky.
The organisers certainly are doing so. However, it’s easy to underestimate the sheer amount of work involved in setting up a centre. Huw and Martin have been putting a lot of time into contacting academic advisors, making policy connections, liaising with Cambridge University and the relevant centres within Cambridge, meeting with representatives from various funding bodies, writing funding applications, and doing media and public outreach. Jaan has provided seed funding, is also making relevant connections and doing media outreach, and has been helping with website design.
Regarding money: Martin and Huw don’t possess the kind of wealth to fund a whole research centre, and Jaan in addition to his CSER funding is funding MIRI, FHI and other organisations. Furthermore, an organisation getting its funds from outside sources, particularly respected academic funding bodies, probably looks more reputable than one that is mainly funded by its own organisers. Raising funds is a big part of setting up any new research centre, Xrisk or otherwise.
Regarding time: Jaan helping with the website is generous, but is not the best use of his time, given his earning and influence power—so I’m going to be minimising how much he’s doing that. Martin and Huw manning the general email account and doing the time-consuming legwork involved in writing grant applications and dealing with bureaucracy is not the best use of their time, given their positions of influence. Better to have someone like me (and others like me) doing that, and for them to be making the connections that I can’t.
There’s just a lot of legwork to be done. The founders aren’t in a position to quit their other positions and responsibilities to devote themselves to that legwork, and even if they were it wouldn’t represent the best use of their time—they would lose valuable influence and earning potential.
“By the way most notable work on x-risks was done without any visable funding, I mean articles of Bostrom and Yudkowsky.” I can’t speak for Yudkowsky, but there certainly was visible (if flexible) funding from the Oxford Martin School for Bostrom’s work on existential risk.