14% of editors listed any of “robustness”, “trustworthy”, “interpretable”, “safety”, “alignment”, “evaluation”, or “security” as a research interest.
10% of editors listed any of “trustworthy”, “interpretable”, “safety”, “alignment”, “evaluation”, or “security” as a research interest. I excluded “robustness” as much of this research is considered more “capabilities” than “safety”.
3.7% of editors listed “safety” or “alignment” as a research interest.
Gemini 3 estimates that there are 15-20k core ML academics and 100-150k supporting PhD students and Postdocs worldwide. If the TMLR sample is representative, this indicates that there are:
~20k academics interested in any of the above research areas.
~15k academics interested in the non-robustness research areas.
~5k academics interested in AI safety or alignment (note that this might include RLHF).
I analyzed the research interests of the 454 Action Editors on the Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR) Editorial Board to determine what proportion of ML academics are interested in AI safety (credit to @scasper for the idea).
14% of editors listed any of “robustness”, “trustworthy”, “interpretable”, “safety”, “alignment”, “evaluation”, or “security” as a research interest.
10% of editors listed any of “trustworthy”, “interpretable”, “safety”, “alignment”, “evaluation”, or “security” as a research interest. I excluded “robustness” as much of this research is considered more “capabilities” than “safety”.
3.7% of editors listed “safety” or “alignment” as a research interest.
Gemini 3 estimates that there are 15-20k core ML academics and 100-150k supporting PhD students and Postdocs worldwide. If the TMLR sample is representative, this indicates that there are:
~20k academics interested in any of the above research areas.
~15k academics interested in the non-robustness research areas.
~5k academics interested in AI safety or alignment (note that this might include RLHF).
“Gemini 3 estimates that there are 15-20k core ML academics and 100-150k supporting PhD students and Postdocs worldwide.”
In my opinion, this seems way too high. What was the logic or assumptions it used?