The case for AI safety capacity-building work
substack.com · 6,512 words · saved by 1 readers
TL;DR:
TL;DR: I think many of the marginal hires at larger organizations doing AI safety technical or policy work right now (including e.g. Apollo, Redwood, METR, RAND, GovAI, Epoch, UKAISI, and Anthropic’s safety teams) would be capable of founding (or being early employees of) organizations focused on building capacity in AI safety, and would have more impact by doing so. I think the impact case for this kind of work is supported by first-principles arguments (the multiplier effect), larger-scale survey work my team at Coefficient Giving has done, and many individual conversations we’ve had…
saved by
related reading
- The case for AI safety capacity-building workmultipliercg.substack.com
- AI Safety's Biggest Talent Gap Isn't Researchers. It's Generalists. — EA Forumforum.effectivealtruism.org
- Core views on AI safety: When, why, what, and how \ Anthropicanthropic.com
- AI safety undervalues founders — LessWronglesswrong.com
- AI Safety is Bottlenecked - Opportunity for Impact is Highbriandavies.substack.com
- Field map – AISafety.comaisafety.com
- Leaving Open Philanthropy, going to Anthropic - Joe Carlsmithjoecarlsmith.com
- Ten AI safety projects I'd like people to work onthirdthing.ai
- I'm Switching Into AI Safetyalexirpan.com
- Field map – AISafety.comaisafety.com
- AI safety technical research | Career review | 80,000 Hours80000hours.org
- Pivot to AI safety, I beg youceselder.substack.com