Hide table of contents

Earlier this year, the Future of Life Institute announced a competition to design visions of a plausible, aspirational future where humanity coexists with artificial general intelligence. Out of ~150 submissions, twenty finalists have been chosen — you can read them all here!

The Future of Life institute would love if you read some finalists and submitted feedback about the scenarios. Please note that I, Jackson Wagner, am not affiliated with FLI — rather, I’m one of the contestants! (Please also note that the US-based FLI is apparently totally different from the Oxford-based “Future of Humanity Institute”.) Since I’m not affiliated with FLI, I’m free to play favorites among the different finalists, so here are my suggestions of the most interesting reads.

My Favorite Entries

World-313 

This entry comes from an impressive seven-person team who have backgrounds in the study of AI governance and existential risk. In contrast to the wild sci-fi of other entries, this scenario has a kind of professional, sensible, “consensus optimistic baseline scenario” feeling. If you would like to read a polished future-history of AI as it might appear in a UN report or Kim Stanley Robinson novel, these people have got what you’re looking for.

World-281

Maybe you don’t want UN reports. Maybe you want stories where a superintelligent AI designs a symbiotic fungal organism to live inside human bodies and improve peoples’ health and intelligence, and where humanity hashes out the Long Reflection by building hive-mind superstructures orbiting the sun!  This scenario is here for you.

World-88 

Of course I think my own entry is the best and most deserving of attention!! Here is the summary I wrote for my scenario:

Look around at humanity’s fractious politics, at the essentially lawless competition of international relations and war, and at our fumbled response to familiar threats like viral pandemics. Our civilization isn’t exactly well-prepared to safely manage the deployment of unpredictable and incredibly powerful AI technology. But how do we get from where we are now, to where we want to go? In our utopian scenario, we imagine:
1. How governments could use mechanisms like prediction markets and liquid democracy, along with AI-enhanced research/analysis tools, to collectively make wiser decisions and capably execute big projects.
2. How positive changes could spread to many countries via competition to achieve faster economic growth than rivals, and via snowball effects whereby passing one reform makes it easier to pass others.
3. How the resulting, more-capable civilization could recognize the threat posed by misalignment of powerful AI systems, and internationally coordinate to create a solid plan for safely developing aligned superintelligent AI.

World-429 

This entry brings a strong dose of Robin-Hanson-esque pessimism (and also realism) about human social motivations and the inadequacy of society’s leading institutions. Its summary:

AGI is kept at a distance from practically impacting the world while narrow AI remakes the world completely. Most people don’t know or care about the difference and have no idea how they could distinguish between a human or artificial stranger in the Metaverse.

It also features a beautifully-written short story and accompanying musical media piece, which explore what it might be like to experience superhumanly high-quality AI-generated art.

Other Finalists

There are lots of great art pieces and interesting ideas mixed in with the other finalists.  World-262 features an entire four-page illustrated comic narrating their activist/leftist vision of a future utopia featuring government by sortition and AI that lets us communicate with animals!  World-165 is from a Kenyan team, and features "digital nations" superseding today's political divisions:

 So, there is a lot of fun stuff in there.  Winners will apparently be announced in "late June" -- but I don't know for sure, I'm not affiliated with FLI!

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Entrant 281 here. I should probably mention that Brightmoss isn't really derived from a flesh-eating fungus. That's just a story they tell at screenless retreat communities due to memetics/evaporative cooling effects/some early civilian analyses that came out in the wake of the initial illegal distribution of Brightmoss which have since been debunked.

By the way, my entry also has an appendix kind of thing, where I examine its proposals in brighter and harsher light, which might be preferable to some readers.

I am the symbiotic sentient lichen responsible for https://worldbuild.ai/W-0000000335/. 

Please DM if you'd like to discuss the possibility of having one of my moieties colonize your lungs or other moist crevasses.

Ah, I am so sorry!  I must have conflated your entry with 281 -- fixed in the post!

Oh, I wasn't implying any link between worlds 335 and 281, I was just riffing off the idea of sentient and/or symbiotic fungi. I actually think by tying them together in the main body of the post it confusing things.

Impressively well called, and congratulations on the prize!

https://worldbuild.ai/#our-finalists

Curated and popular this week
abrahamrowe
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
This is a Draft Amnesty Week draft. It may not be polished, up to my usual standards, fully thought through, or fully fact-checked.  Commenting and feedback guidelines:  I'm posting this to get it out there. I'd love to see comments that take the ideas forward, but criticism of my argument won't be as useful at this time, in part because I won't do any further work on it. This is a post I drafted in November 2023, then updated for an hour in March 2025. I don’t think I’ll ever finish it so I am just leaving it in this draft form for draft amnesty week (I know I'm late). I don’t think it is particularly well calibrated, but mainly just makes a bunch of points that I haven’t seen assembled elsewhere. Please take it as extremely low-confidence and there being a low-likelihood of this post describing these dynamics perfectly. I’ve worked at both EA charities and non-EA charities, and the EA funding landscape is unlike any other I’ve ever been in. This can be good — funders are often willing to take high-risk, high-reward bets on projects that might otherwise never get funded, and the amount of friction for getting funding is significantly lower. But, there is an orientation toward funders (and in particular staff at some major funders), that seems extremely unusual for charitable communities: a high degree of deference to their opinions. As a reference, most other charitable communities I’ve worked in have viewed funders in a much more mixed light. Engaging with them is necessary, yes, but usually funders (including large, thoughtful foundations like Open Philanthropy) are viewed as… an unaligned third party who is instrumentally useful to your organization, but whose opinions on your work should hold relatively little or no weight, given that they are a non-expert on the direct work, and often have bad ideas about how to do what you are doing. I think there are many good reasons to take funders’ perspectives seriously, and I mostly won’t cover these here. But, to
Jim Chapman
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
By Jim Chapman, Linkedin. TL;DR: In 2023, I was a 57-year-old urban planning consultant and non-profit professional with 30 years of leadership experience. After talking with my son about rationality, effective altruism, and AI risks, I decided to pursue a pivot to existential risk reduction work. The last time I had to apply for a job was in 1994. By the end of 2024, I had spent ~740 hours on courses, conferences, meetings with ~140 people, and 21 job applications. I hope that by sharing my experiences, you can gain practical insights, inspiration, and resources to navigate your career transition, especially for those who are later in their career and interested in making an impact in similar fields. I share my experience in 5 sections - sparks, take stock, start, do, meta-learnings, and next steps. [Note - as of 03/05/2025, I am still pursuing my career shift.] Sparks – 2022 During a Saturday bike ride, I admitted to my son, “No, I haven’t heard of effective altruism.” On another ride, I told him, “I'm glad you’re attending the EAGx Berkely conference." Some other time, I said, "Harry Potter and Methods of Rationality sounds interesting. I'll check it out." While playing table tennis, I asked, "What do you mean ChatGPT can't do math? No calculator? Next token prediction?" Around tax-filing time, I responded, "You really think retirement planning is out the window? That only 1 of 2 artificial intelligence futures occurs – humans flourish in a post-scarcity world or humans lose?" These conversations intrigued and concerned me. After many more conversations about rationality, EA, AI risks, and being ready for something new and more impactful, I decided to pivot my career to address my growing concerns about existential risk, particularly AI-related. I am very grateful for those conversations because without them, I am highly confident I would not have spent the last year+ doing that. Take Stock - 2023 I am very concerned about existential risk cause areas in ge
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Written anonymously because I work in a field where there is a currently low but non-negligible and possibly high future risk of negative consequences for criticizing Trump and Trumpism. This post is an attempt to cobble together some ideas about the current situation in the United States and its impact on EA. I invite discussion on this, not only from Americans, but also those with advocacy experience in countries that are not fully liberal democracies (especially those countries where state capacity is substantial and autocratic repression occurs).  I've deleted a lot of text from this post in various drafts because I find myself getting way too in the weeds discoursing on comparative authoritarian studies, disinformation and misinformation (this is a great intro, though already somewhat outdated), and the dangers of the GOP.[1] I will note that I worry there is still a tendency to view the administration as chaotic and clumsy but retaining some degree of good faith, which strikes me as quite naive.  For the sake of brevity and focus, I will take these two things to be true, and try to hypothesize what they mean for EA. I'm not going to pretend these are ironclad truths, but I'm fairly confident in them.[2]  1. Under Donald Trump, the Republican Party (GOP) is no longer substantially committed to democracy and the rule of law. 1. The GOP will almost certainly continue to engage in measures that test the limits of constitutional rule as long as Trump is alive, and likely after he dies. 2. The Democratic Party will remain constrained by institutional and coalition factors that prevent it from behaving like the GOP. That is, absent overwhelming electoral victories in 2024 and 2026 (and beyond), the Democrats' comparatively greater commitment to rule of law and democracy will prevent systematic purging of the GOP elites responsible for democratic backsliding; while we have not crossed the Rubicon yet, it will get much worse before things get better. 2. T