EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Stefan_Schubert4
1
0

The post seems to confuse the postdoctoral fellowship and the PhD fellowship (assuming the text on the grant interface is correct). It's the postdoc fellowship that has an $80,000 stipend, whereas the PhD fellowship stipend is $40,000.

Reply
Zhijing Jin3
0
0

Thank you for spotting it! I just did the fix :).

Reply
See in context
by Zhijing Jin
2 min read 5

14

AI safetyExistential riskOpportunities to take actionApplication announcementsAnnouncements and updatesFellowships and internshipsFunding opportunitiesResearch
Frontpage

This is a linkpost for https://grants.futureoflife.org/

Epistemic status: Describing the fellowship that we are a part of and sharing some suggestions and experiences.

The Future of Life Institute is opening its PhD and postdoc fellowships in AI Existential Safety now. Same as in the previous calls in 2022 and 2023, it has two separate opportunities:

  • Up-to-Five-Year PhD Fellowship: Apply by Nov 16, 2023. This fellowship covers "tuition, fees, and the stipend of the student's PhD program up to $40,000, as well as a fund of $10,000 that can be used for research-related expenses."
  • Up-to-Three-Year Postdoc Fellowship: Apply by Jan 2, 2024. This fellowship supports "an annual $80,000 stipend and a fund of up to $10,000 that can be used for research-related expenses."

The main purpose for the fellowship is to nurture a cohort of rising star researchers that work on AI existential safety, and selected fellows will also participate in annual workshops and other activities that will be organized to help them interact and network with other researchers in the field.

The application is very inclusive:

For (Prospective) PhDs:

To be eligible, applicants should either be graduate students or be applying to PhD programs. Funding is conditional on being accepted to a PhD program, working on AI existential safety research, and having an advisor who can confirm to us that they will support the student’s work on AI existential safety research. If a student has multiple advisors, these confirmations would be required from all advisors. There is an exception to this last requirement for first-year graduate students, where all that is required is an "existence proof". For example, in departments requiring rotations during the first year of a PhD, funding is contingent on only one of the professors making this confirmation. If a student changes advisor, this confirmation is required from the new advisor for the fellowship to continue.

An application from a current graduate student must address in the Research Statement how this fellowship would enable their AI existential safety research, either by letting them continue such research when no other funding is currently available, or by allowing them to switch into this area.

Fellows are expected to participate in annual workshops and other activities that will be organized to help them interact and network with other researchers in the field.

Continued funding is contingent on continued eligibility, demonstrated by submitting a brief (~1 page) progress report by July 1st of each year.

There are no geographic limitations on applicants or host universities. We welcome applicants from a diverse range of backgrounds, and we particularly encourage applications from women and underrepresented minorities. 

For Postdocs:

To be eligible, applicants should identify a mentor (normally a professor) at the host institution (normally a university) who commits in writing to mentor and support the applicant in their AI existential safety research if a Fellowship is awarded. This includes ensuring that the applicant has access to office space and is welcomed and integrated into the local research community. Fellows are expected to participate in annual workshops and other activities that will be organized to help them interact and network with other researchers in the field.

How to Apply

You can apply at grants.futureoflife.org, and if you know people who may be good fits, please help spread the word! Good luck!

14

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments5


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Stefan_Schubert4
1
0

The post seems to confuse the postdoctoral fellowship and the PhD fellowship (assuming the text on the grant interface is correct). It's the postdoc fellowship that has an $80,000 stipend, whereas the PhD fellowship stipend is $40,000.

Reply
Zhijing Jin3
0
0

Thank you for spotting it! I just did the fix :).

Reply
jacquesthibs4
2
0

Fantastic news. Note: don’t forget to share it on LessWrong too.

Reply
Zhijing Jin1
0
0

Good idea! Just made the other post to reach more audience!

Reply
SummaryBot2
0
0

Executive summary: The Future of Life Institute is offering PhD and postdoc fellowships in AI Existential Safety for 2024, aiming to foster a cohort of researchers in this field, with no geographic limitations on applicants or host universities.

Key points:

  1. PhD fellowships provide an $80,000 stipend and $10,000 research fund, open until November 16, 2023.
  2. Postdoc fellowships cover up to $40,000 tuition and fees plus a $10,000 research fund, open until January 2, 2024.
  3. Fellows participate in workshops and activities to network with others in AI existential safety.
  4. Applications are inclusive - all backgrounds encouraged, especially women and minorities.
  5. Requirement is working on AI existential safety with an advisor's support.
  6. Application is through the FLI grants website - spread the word to potential applicants.

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while
Max Taylor
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Many thanks to Constance Li, Rachel Mason, Ronen Bar, Sam Tucker-Davis, and Yip Fai Tse for providing valuable feedback. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Artificial General Intelligence (basically, ‘AI that is as good as, or better than, humans at most intellectual tasks’) seems increasingly likely to be developed in the next 5-10 years. As others have written, this has major implications for EA priorities, including animal advocacy, but it’s hard to know how this should shape our strategy. This post sets out a few starting points and I’m really interested in hearing others’ ideas, even if they’re very uncertain and half-baked. Is AGI coming in the next 5-10 years? This is very well covered elsewhere but basically it looks increasingly likely, e.g.: * The Metaculus and Manifold forecasting platforms predict we’ll see AGI in 2030 and 2031, respectively. * The heads of Anthropic and OpenAI think we’ll see it by 2027 and 2035, respectively. * A 2024 survey of AI researchers put a 50% chance of AGI by 2047, but this is 13 years earlier than predicted in the 2023 version of the survey. * These predictions seem feasible given the explosive rate of change we’ve been seeing in computing power available to models, algorithmic efficiencies, and actual model performance (e.g., look at how far Large Language Models and AI image generators have come just in the last three years). * Based on this, organisations (both new ones, like Forethought, and existing ones, like 80,000 Hours) are taking the prospect of near-term AGI increasingly seriously. What could AGI mean for animals? AGI’s implications for animals depend heavily on who controls the AGI models. For example: * AGI might be controlled by a handful of AI companies and/or governments, either in alliance or in competition. * For example, maybe two government-owned companies separately develop AGI then restrict others from developing it. * These actors’ use of AGI might be dr
Recent opportunities in AI safety
102
AI Moral Alignment: The Most Important Goal of Our Generation
Ronen Bar
· · 10m read
21
21
35
Center on Long-Term Risk: Summer Research Fellowship 2025
Center on Long-Term Risk
· · 1m read
0
0
28
Apply to the Cambridge ERA:AI Fellowship 2025
Harrison 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
View more