The host has requested RSVPs for this event

Les organismes d'évaluation de l'altruisme efficace (GiveWell, Animal Charity Evaluators, Giving Green, Founders Pledge, et d'autres) fournissent depuis des années des analyses sur de nombreuses organisations que nous pouvons soutenir par des dons, du bénévolat ou encore pour y travailler. Malheureusement, ces associations sont généralement situées hors de France, où les dons ne peuvent bénéficier de l'avantageuse réduction fiscale, et où il est très difficile de se faire embaucher.

Corentin Biteau a travaillé pour le compte d'Altruisme Efficace France pendant plusieurs mois pour proposer une liste d'organisations à fort impact potentiel dans les causes typiquement mises en avant au sein du mouvement, sur la base de nombreux entretiens avec des experts sectoriels et de dirigeants des associations concernées.

https://www.altruismeefficacefrance.org/organisations...

Cette session doit permettre de présenter les résultats de ce travail, mais aussi la méthodologie et les nombreuses limites de notre approche.

Plan de la présentation
- Approche et méthodologie, limites
- Organisations identifiées
- Futures itérations ?
- Questions-réponses

La présentation aura lieu sur Zoom : https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87353004775... (si un mot de passe est demandé, ce sera 240062)

4

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 55m read
 · 
Summary Last updated 2024-11-20. It's been a while since I last put serious thought into where to donate. Well I'm putting thought into it this year and I'm changing my mind on some things. I now put more priority on existential risk (especially AI risk), and less on animal welfare and global priorities research. I believe I previously gave too little consideration to x-risk for emotional reasons, and I've managed to reason myself out of those emotions. Within x-risk: * AI is the most important source of risk. * There is a disturbingly high probability that alignment research won't solve alignment by the time superintelligent AI arrives. Policy work seems more promising. * Specifically, I am most optimistic about policy advocacy for government regulation to pause/slow down AI development. In the rest of this post, I will explain: 1. Why I prioritize x-risk over animal-focused longtermist work and global priorities research. 2. Why I prioritize AI policy over AI alignment research. 3. My beliefs about what kinds of policy work are best. Then I provide a list of organizations working on AI policy and my evaluation of each of them, and where I plan to donate. Cross-posted to my website. I don't like donating to x-risk (This section is about my personal motivations. The arguments and logic start in the next section.) For more than a decade I've leaned toward longtermism and I've been concerned about existential risk, but I've never directly donated to x-risk reduction. I dislike x-risk on an emotional level for a few reasons: * In the present day, aggregate animal welfare matters far more than aggregate human welfare (credence: 90%). Present-day animal suffering is so extraordinarily vast that on some level it feels irresponsible to prioritize anything else, even though rationally I buy the arguments for longtermism. * Animal welfare is more neglected than x-risk (credence: 90%).[1] * People who prioritize x-risk often disregard animal welfare (or t
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
The AI safety community has grown rapidly since the ChatGPT wake-up call, but available funding doesn’t seem to have kept pace. However, there’s a more recent dynamic that’s created even better funding opportunities, which I witnessed as a recommender in the most recent SFF grant round.[1]   Most philanthropic (vs. government or industry) AI safety funding (>50%) comes from one source: Good Ventures. But they’ve recently stopped funding several categories of work (my own categories, not theirs): * Many Republican-leaning think tanks, such as the Foundation for American Innovation. * “Post-alignment” causes such as digital sentience or regulation of explosive growth. * The rationality community, including LessWrong, Lightcone, SPARC, CFAR, MIRI. * High school outreach, such as Non-trivial. In addition, they are currently not funding (or not fully funding): * Many non-US think tanks, who don’t want to appear influenced by an American organisation (there’s now probably more than 20 of these). * They do fund technical safety non-profits like FAR AI, though they’re probably underfunding this area, in part due to difficulty hiring for this area the last few years (though they’ve hired recently). * Political campaigns, since foundations can’t contribute to them. * Organisations they’ve decided are below their funding bar for whatever reason (e.g. most agent foundations work). OP is not infallible so some of these might still be worth funding. * Nuclear security, since it’s on average less cost-effective than direct AI funding, so isn’t one of the official cause areas (though I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some good opportunities there). This means many of the organisations in these categories have only been able to access a a minority of the available philanthropic capital (in recent history, I’d guess ~25%). In the recent SFF grant round, I estimate they faced a funding bar 1.5 to 3 times higher. This creates a lot of opportunities for other donors
Nikola
 ·  · 1m read
 ·