Co-Executive Director at ML Alignment & Theory Scholars Program (2022-present)
Co-Founder & Board Member at London Initiative for Safe AI (2023-present)
Manifund Regrantor (2023-present) | RFPs here
Advisor, Catalyze Impact (2023-present) | ToC here
Advisor, AI Safety ANZ (2024-present)
Ph.D. in Physics at the University of Queensland (2017-2023)
Group organizer at Effective Altruism UQ (2018-2021)
Give me feedback! :)
Scholars working on safety teams at scaling labs generally selected “working/interning on AI alignment/control”; some of these also selected “working/interning on AI capabilities”, as noted. We are independently researching where each alumnus ended up working, as the data is incomplete from this survey (but usually publicly available), and will share separately.
Great suggestion! We’ll publish this in our next alumni impact evaluation, given that we will have longer-term data (with more scholars) soon.
Cheers!
I think you might have implicitly assumed that my main crux here is whether or not take-off will be fast. I actually feel this is less decision-relevant for me than the other cruxes I listed, such as time-to-AGI or “sharp left turns.” If take-off is fast, AI alignment/control does seem much harder and I’m honestly not sure what research is most effective; maybe attempts at reflectively stable or provable single-shot alignment seem crucial, or maybe we should just do the same stuff faster? I’m curious: what current AI safety research do you consider most impactful in fast take-off worlds?
To me, agent foundations research seems most useful in worlds where:
There is an AGI winter and we have time to do highly reliable agent design; or
We build alignment MVPs, institute a moratorium on superintelligence, and task the AIs to solve superintelligence alignment (quickly), possibly building off existent agent foundations work. In this world, existing agent foundations work helps human overseers ground and evaluate AI output.
I just left a comment on PIBBSS’ Manifund grant proposal (which I funded $25k) that people might find interesting.
Main points in favor of this grant
My inside view is that PIBBSS mainly supports “blue sky” or “basic” research, some of which has a low chance of paying off, but might be critical in “worst case” alignment scenarios (e.g., where “alignment MVPs” don’t work, or “sharp left turns” and “intelligence explosions” are more likely than I expect). In contrast, of the technical research MATS supports, about half is basic research (e.g., interpretability, evals, agent foundations) and half is applied research (e.g., oversight + control, value alignment). I think the MATS portfolio is a better holistic strategy for furthering AI alignment. However, if one takes into account the research conducted at AI labs and supported by MATS, PIBBSS’ strategy makes a lot of sense: they are supporting a wide portfolio of blue sky research that is particularly neglected by existing institutions and might be very impactful in a range of possible “worst-case” AGI scenarios. I think this is a valid strategy in the current ecosystem/market and I support PIBBSS!
In MATS’ recent post, “Talent Needs of Technical AI Safety Teams”, we detail an AI safety talent archetype we name “Connector”. Connectors bridge exploratory theory and empirical science, and sometimes instantiate new research paradigms. As we discussed in the post, finding and developing Connectors is hard, often their development time is on the order of years, and there is little demand on the AI safety job market for this role. However, Connectors can have an outsized impact on shaping the AI safety field and the few that make it are “household names” in AI safety and usually build organizations, teams, or grant infrastructure around them. I think that MATS is far from the ideal training ground for Connectors (although some do pass through!) as our program is only 10 weeks long (with an optional 4 month extension) rather than the ideal 12-24 months, we select scholars to fit established mentors’ preferences rather than on the basis of their original research ideas, and our curriculum and milestones generally focus on building object-level scientific skills rather than research ideation and “gap-identifying”. It’s thus no surprise that most MATS scholars are “Iterator” archetypes. I think there is substantial value in a program like PIBBSS existing, to support the development of “Connectors” and pursue impact in a higher-variance way than MATS.
PIBBSS seems to have decent track record for recruiting experienced academics in non-CS fields and helping them repurpose their advanced scientific skills to develop novel approaches to AI safety. Highlights for me include Adam Shai’s “computational mechanics” approach to interpretability and model cognition, Martín Soto’s “logical updatelessness” approach to decision theory, and Gabriel Weil’s “tort law” approach to making AI labs liable for their potential harms on the long-term future.
I don’t know Lucas Teixeira (Research Director) very well, but I know and respect Dušan D. Nešić (Operations Director) a lot. I also highly endorsed Nora Ammann’s vision (albeit while endorsing a different vision for MATS). I see PIBBSS as a highly competent and EA-aligned organization, and I would be excited to see them grow!
I think PIBBSS would benefit from funding from diverse sources, as mainstream AI safety funders have pivoted more towards applied technical research (or more governance-relevant basic research like evals). I think Manifund regrantors are well-positioned to endorse more speculative basic research, but I don’t really know how to evalutate such research myself, so I’d rather defer to experts. PIBBSS seems well-positioned to provide this expertise! I know that Nora had quite deep models of this while Research Director and in talking with Dusan, I have had a similar impression. I hope to talk with Lucas soon!
Donor’s main reservations
It seems that PIBBSS might be pivoting away from higher variance blue sky research to focus on more mainstream AI interpretability. While this might create more opportunities for funding, I think this would be a mistake. The AI safety ecosystem needs a home for “weird ideas” and PIBBSS seems the most reputable, competent, EA-aligned place for this! I encourage PIBBSS to “embrace the weird”, albeit while maintaining high academic standards for basic research, modelled off the best basic science institutions.
I haven’t examined PIBBSS’ applicant selection process and I’m not entirely confident it is the best version it can be, given how hard MATS has found applicant selection and my intuitions around the difficulty of choosing a blue sky research portfolio. I strongly encourage PIBBSS to publicly post and seek feedback on their applicant selection and research prioritization processes, so that the AI safety ecosystem can offer useful insight. I would also be open to discussing these more with PIBBSS, though I expect this would be less useful.
My donation is not very counterfactual here, given PIBBSS’ large budget and track record. However, there has been a trend in typical large AI safety funders away from agent foundations and interpretability, so I think my grant is still meaningful.
Process for deciding amount
I decided to donate the project’s minimum funding ($25k) so that other donors would have time to consider the project’s merits and potentially contribute. Given the large budget and track record of PIBBSS, I think my funds are less counterfactual here than for smaller, more speculative projects, so I only donated the minimum. I might donate significantly more to PIBBSS later if I can’t find better grants, or if PIBBSS is unsuccessful in fundraising.
Conflicts of interest
I don’t believe there are any conflicts of interest to declare.
I don’t think I’d change it, but my priorities have shifted. Also, many of the projects I suggested now exist, as indicated in my comments!
More contests like ELK with well-operationalized research problems (i.e., clearly explain what builder/breaker steps look like), clear metrics of success, and have a well-considered target audience (who is being incentivized to apply and why?) and user journey (where do prize winners go next?).
We’ve seen a profusion of empirical ML hackathons and contests recently.
A New York-based alignment hub that aims to provide talent search and logistical support for NYU Professor Sam Bowman’s planned AI safety research group.
Based on Bowman’s comment, I no longer think this is worthwhile.
Hackathons in which people with strong ML knowledge (not ML novices) write good-faith critiques of AI alignment papers and worldviews
Apart Research runs hackathons, but these are largely empirical in nature (and still valuable).
A talent recruitment and onboarding organization targeting cyber security researchers
Palisade Research now exists and are running the AI Security Forum. However, I don’t think Palisade are quite what I envisaged for this hiring pipeline.
IAPS AI Policy Fellowship also exists now!
SPAR exists! Though I don’t think it can offer visas.
A London-based MATS clone
This index should include Lighthaven, right?
I interpret your comment as assuming that new researchers with good ideas produce more impact on their own than in teams working towards a shared goal; this seems false to me. I think that independent research is usually a bad bet in general and that most new AI safety researchers should be working on relatively few impactful research directions, most of which are best pursued within a team due to the nature of the research (though some investment in other directions seems good for the portfolio).
I’ve addressed this a bit in thread, but here are some more thoughts:
New AI safety researchers seem to face mundane barriers to reducing AI catastrophic risk, including funding, infrastructure, and general executive function.
MATS alumni are generally doing great stuff (~78% currently work in AI safety/control, ~1.4% work on AI capabilities), but we can do even better.
Like any other nascent scientific/engineering discipline, AI safety will produce more impactful research with scale, albeit with some diminishing returns on impact eventually (I think we are far from the inflection point, however).
MATS alumni, as a large swathe of the most talented new AI safety researchers in my (possibly biased) opinion, should ideally not experience mundane barriers to reducing AI catastrophic risk.
Independent research seems worse than team-based research for most research that aims to reduce AI catastrophic risk:
“Pair-programming”, builder-breaker, rubber-ducking, etc. are valuable parts of the research process and are benefited by working in a team.
Funding insecurity and grantwriting responsibilities are larger for independent researchers and obstruct research.
Orgs with larger teams and discretionary funding can take on interns to help scale projects and provide mentorship.
Good prosaic AI safety research largely looks more like large teams doing engineering and less like lone geniuses doing maths. Obviously, some lone genius researchers (especially on mathsy non-prosaic agendas) seem great for the portfolio too, but these people seem hard to find/train anyways (so there is often more alpha in the former by my lights). Also, I have doubts that the optimal mechanism to incentivize “lone genius research” is via small independent grants instead of large bounties and academic nerdsniping.
Therefore, more infrastructure and funding for MATS alumni, who are generally value-aligned and competent, is good for reducing AI catastrophic risk in expectation.
Also note that historically many individuals entering AI safety seem to have been pursuing the “Connector” path, when most jobs now (and probably in the future) are “Iterator”-shaped, and larger AI safety projects are also principally bottlenecked by “Amplifiers”. The historical focus on recruiting and training Connectors to the detriment of Iterators and Amplifiers has likely contributed to this relative talent shortage. A caveat: Connectors are also critical for founding new research agendas and organizations, though many self-styled Connectors would likely substantially benefit as founders by improving some Amplifier-shaped soft skills, including leadership, collaboration, networking, and fundraising.
Erratum: previously, this statistic was “7%”, which erroneously included two alumni who did not complete the program before Winter 2023-24, which is outside the scope of this report. Additionally, two of the three alumni from before Winter 2023-24 who selected “working/interning on AI capabilities” first completed our survey in Sep 2024 and were therefore not included in the data used for plots and statistics. If we include those two alumni, this statistic would be 3⁄74 = 4.1%, but this would be misrepresentative as several other alumni who completed the program before Winter 2023-24 filled in the survey during or after Sep 2024.