Random idea: A lot of people seem discouraged from doing anything about AI Safety because it seems like such a big overwhelming problem.
What if there was a competition to encourage people to engage in low-effort actions towards AI safety, such as hosting a dinner for people who are interested, volunteering to run a session on AI safety for their local EA group, answering a couple of questions on the stampy wiki, offering to proof-read a few people’s posts or offering a few free tutorial sessions to aspiring AI Safety Researchers.
I think there’s a decent chance I could get this funded (prize might be $1000 for the best action and up to 5 prizes of $100 for random actions above a certain bar)
Possible downsides: Would be bad if people reach out to important people or the media without fully thinking stuff through, but can be mitigated by excluding those kinds of actions/ adding guidelines
Those don’t seem like very low effort to me, but they will to some. Do they seem to you like they are effective (or at least impactful commensurate with the effort)? How would you know which ones to continue and what other types of thing to encourage?
I fear that it has much of the same problem that any direct involvement in AI safety does: what’s the feedback loop for whether it’s actually making a difference? Your initial suggestions seem more like actions toward activism and pop awareness, rather than actions toward AI Safety.
The nice thing about prizes and compensation is that it moves the question from the performer to the payer—the payer has to decide if it’s a good value. Small prizes or low comp means BOTH buyer and worker have to make the decision of whether this is worthwhile.
Solving the productivity-measurement problem itself seems overwhelming—it hasn’t happened even for money-grubbing businesses, let alone long-term x-risk organizations. But any steps toward it will do more than anything else I can think of to get broader and more effective participation. Being able to show that what I do makes a measurable difference, even through my natural cynicism and imposter syndrome, is key to my involvement.
I am not typical, so don’t take my concerns as the final word—this seems promising and relatively cheap (in money; it will take a fair bit of effort in guiding the sessions and preparing materials for the tutoring. Honestly, that’s probably more important than the actual prizes).
I guess they just feel like as good a starting place as any and are unlikely to be net-negative. That’s more important than anything else. The point is to instill agency so that people start looking for further opportunities to make a difference. I might have to write a few paragraphs of guidelines/suggestions for some of the most common potential activities.
I hadn’t really thought too much about follow-up, but maybe I should think more about it.
Random idea: A lot of people seem discouraged from doing anything about AI Safety because it seems like such a big overwhelming problem.
What if there was a competition to encourage people to engage in low-effort actions towards AI safety, such as hosting a dinner for people who are interested, volunteering to run a session on AI safety for their local EA group, answering a couple of questions on the stampy wiki, offering to proof-read a few people’s posts or offering a few free tutorial sessions to aspiring AI Safety Researchers.
I think there’s a decent chance I could get this funded (prize might be $1000 for the best action and up to 5 prizes of $100 for random actions above a certain bar)
Possible downsides: Would be bad if people reach out to important people or the media without fully thinking stuff through, but can be mitigated by excluding those kinds of actions/ adding guidelines
Keen for thoughts or feedback.
I like it, and it’s worth trying out.
Those don’t seem like very low effort to me, but they will to some. Do they seem to you like they are effective (or at least impactful commensurate with the effort)? How would you know which ones to continue and what other types of thing to encourage?
I fear that it has much of the same problem that any direct involvement in AI safety does: what’s the feedback loop for whether it’s actually making a difference? Your initial suggestions seem more like actions toward activism and pop awareness, rather than actions toward AI Safety.
The nice thing about prizes and compensation is that it moves the question from the performer to the payer—the payer has to decide if it’s a good value. Small prizes or low comp means BOTH buyer and worker have to make the decision of whether this is worthwhile.
Solving the productivity-measurement problem itself seems overwhelming—it hasn’t happened even for money-grubbing businesses, let alone long-term x-risk organizations. But any steps toward it will do more than anything else I can think of to get broader and more effective participation. Being able to show that what I do makes a measurable difference, even through my natural cynicism and imposter syndrome, is key to my involvement.
I am not typical, so don’t take my concerns as the final word—this seems promising and relatively cheap (in money; it will take a fair bit of effort in guiding the sessions and preparing materials for the tutoring. Honestly, that’s probably more important than the actual prizes).
I guess they just feel like as good a starting place as any and are unlikely to be net-negative. That’s more important than anything else. The point is to instill agency so that people start looking for further opportunities to make a difference. I might have to write a few paragraphs of guidelines/suggestions for some of the most common potential activities.
I hadn’t really thought too much about follow-up, but maybe I should think more about it.