EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Adrian Cipriani1
0
0

Yes, however my vote is just 25% as we're in a team of four people.

Reply
See in context
by Adrian Cipriani
2 min read 23

13

Opportunities to take actionEffective givingBuilding effective altruismCommunityEffective altruism educationEffective altruism outreach in schools
Frontpage

We have 4 winners: Have a look at aisafety.art !

Notes on the votes, regarding feedback from the community:

I used STAR voting to process the votes, as some people kindly pointed out, and I also made sure by grouping the votes of logo variations that designs with many variations are not disadvantaged.

EDIT: vote here: http://vote.aisafety.art from 1st July - 14th July '23 11pm UCT 
and see page aisafety.art

EDIT: received all submissions, timeframe for voting will be delayed by about 2 weeks as one of the organisers wanted to add  more designs from a different source to the voting pool, but this won't affect prize distribution. (19th June 2023)

EDIT: extended deadline is Saturday May 27th 2023 11:59 PM UTC

This contest is about creating a logo to represent AI safety research. 

I’m being supported by an independent funder and people from nonlinear.org and am taking care of administration and communication.

We’re doing an open process (voting) and want to involve different people through the contest to get a better logo design and to increase the chances of adoption.

 

1) rough concept ideas contest

deadline: May 15th 2023

We’re looking for different quick and great design ideas for this round. Not everything has to be spot on yet, this will be done in 2) and 3) .

Submit as many rough logo design ideas as you want as a .PNG and .SVG file to this Google Form: https://forms.gle/6fwVYbPBrqVdCHax6

 

2) feedback & voting on best design ideas chosen by jury

DATE TBA

Via another Google Form, this post will be updated with the link once there’s a selection by the jury of 5 - 10 contest submissions available.

Only accounts with at least 100 Karma on forum.effectivealtruism.org or lesswrong.com are allowed to vote.

With a $ 1.5k prize pool for the best design ideas from the contest which are being used further, this might be one design or multiple as decided by the votes & the jury, with the prize money spread out evenly. 

We’re open for someone to increase the prize pool, please send me an email!

 

3) polishing of winning design(s)

We’ll hire a great designer for creating the final logo from the winning design(s).


After the completion of the contest the final logo will be publicly available for free use at www.aisafety.art .
If you have any questions please reach out to me at ai_logo@cipriani.studio 

------------------------------------------------------------------

I’d like to disclose here that I’m also trying to enter an idea myself, however I won’t be able to decide on my own which designs are considered for polishing.

Composition of the jury: two people from Nonlinear, an independent funder, me (Adrian Cipriani)



 

13

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments22


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
RomanHauksson5
1
0

Suggestion: use a well-designed voting system such as STAR voting, approval voting, or quadratic voting.

Reply
Adrian Cipriani4
0
0

Thanks for suggesting @RomanHauksson , so far something along the lines of approval voting for multiple winners seems favourable to me.

Reply
jai4
1
0

The current form appears to only allow uploading image files; I can upload a PNG, but not an SVG. This is probably just as well in my case, as the SVG only makes it more painfully obvious that I have no idea how to use Inkscape, but it seems like unintended behavior you might want to change.

Reply
Adrian Cipriani2
0
0

Changed it, thanks for noting. You can add it now :)

Reply
Chris Leong3
0
0

Really excited to see this happening!

Reply
Milan Weibel🔹2
1
0

PSA: The form accepts a maximum of 10 files, that is, 5 design proposals maximum (because each proposal requires uploading both a .png and a .svg file).

Reply
Adrian Cipriani1
0
0

I added another field in case anyone wants to submit more than 5 different ideas in one turn.

Reply
Geoffrey Miller2
0
0

Adrian - good idea; I hope you get some excellent submissions.

Are you open to logo designs by AI systems? It might be ironic if a logo designed with the help of Midjourney or Stable Diffusion ends up winning.

Reply
Adrian Cipriani2
0
0

Thank you @Geoffrey Miller ! Yes, we expect some people will use Midjourney as a source for inspiration. However, we expect submissions to be vector graphic files (.SVG) as well.

Reply
Constance Li1
0
0

I’ve tried designing logos on Midjourney before. I’ve personally found it to be off mark in all of the cases. It would be really cool if the logo that won did use AI though.

Reply
firinn2
0
0

I enjoy doing this kind of thing and would enter several entries if you removed the requirement for a .svg file. It creates a pretty significant amount of unnecessary hassle - I'd understand if it was for a finished product, but I'm not going to use vector for sketches.

Reply
Quinn McHugh (he/him)1
0
0

Only accounts with at least 100 Karma on forum.effectivealtruism.org or lesswrong.com are allowed to vote.

I'm a little confused by this. What's the motivation for using a karma threshold to decide who does and doesn't get to vote?

Reply
Felix Wolf 🔸6
1
0

Hi Quinn,
this seems like a hurdle to prevent the use of sock puppets to prevent mass voting on your own logo idea. It is common that online voting gets attention of trolls, and they vote for something funny or extreme instead of good. This would partly also be the reason they use voting + the jury.
Voting gets the community engaged, they want to help their favourite creator and can also be part of the jury themselves.

Note: I am not a part of the organizer team and had no influence in the decision to use a threshold or on its height.

Reply
Adrian Cipriani4
0
0

Yes, that's basically our motivation. Thanks @Felix Wolf for explaining!

Reply
Quinn McHugh (he/him)1
0
0

@Felix Wolf Thanks for taking the time to explain, Felix. This makes sense now.

Reply
AnnieAB1
0
0

Also am I right in thinking that you're entering for prize money as well as making decisions on who gets the money? 

Reply
Adrian Cipriani1
0
0

Yes, however my vote is just 25% as we're in a team of four people.

Reply
AnnieAB1
1
0

I think it's bad if you have any advantage at all over any other entrants. I imagine you're also in a good position to exert influence over the other jury members if you wanted to. All things considered I think it would be best, or at least the most fair, if you were not allowed to financially gain from this. 

I would appreciate others' input on this as well (eg via agreement up/downvote).

Reply
Adrian Cipriani1
0
0

Hello @AnnieAB thanks for bringing it up, I didn't submit any ideas in the end. Hope this helps!

Reply
AnnieAB1
0
0

What's the exact deadline time tomorrow, please? 

Reply
Adrian Cipriani1
0
0

We decided to extend the deadline until Saturday 27.5.23 11:59 PM UTC because we received only a little more than 20 different logo ideas so far. Hope this helps!

Reply
AnnieAB1
0
0

Aw, I stayed up late for nothing 😅 

You might need to spread this more widely than the forum if you haven't already.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
Relevant opportunities
90
E2G help available
Will Kirkpatrick
· · 3m read
3
3
9
An International Collaborative Hub for Advancing AI Safety Research
Cody Albert
· · 6m read
0
0
45
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
View more