EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
JakubK7
0
0

Thanks for sharing these. The Chinese Association for AGI appears to focus on advancing AI capabilities rather than AI safety. I used Google Translate to translate the lead paragraph of the website's current opening page:

Notice of the 7th China General Artificial Intelligence Annual Conference

The China General Artificial Intelligence Annual Conference has been successfully held for six consecutive sessions. It is an annual event for Chinese general artificial intelligence enthusiasts, involving computer science, philosophy, logic, education, psychology, sociology, law, medicine and other disciplines. In order to better demonstrate and promote the research and application of general artificial intelligence, the 7th China General Artificial Intelligence Annual Conference in 2022 will be held at Northwest University for Nationalities in Lanzhou City.

Reply
See in context
by JakubK
1 min read4 answers 1

18

AI safetyExistential riskOpportunities to take actionChinaAI alignmentAI governanceBuilding the field of AI safetyTranslation
Frontpage
Show all topics

Is there any Mandarin equivalent of the AGI Safety Fundamentals course? Someone could translate the curriculum into Mandarin. Translation doesn't matter as much if many Chinese people speak English, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

That's just one thought that motivated me to write this question. It would be extremely valuable to introduce Chinese students and professionals to AGI safety. Not only because China has a strong AI industry, but also because China has >1.4 billion people. Yet as far as I know, most AI alignment projects and organizations target English speakers. I've spent very little time researching AI alignment in China, and I could certainly be wrong.

If people want to do more research, I'd recommend the 2022 AI Index Report. Here is a (possibly misleading; again, I haven't looked into this carefully) graph from page 26:

From the 2022 AI Index Report.

18

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


4 Answers sorted by
Top

JakubK

7
0
0

Vael Gates's post "Resources I send to AI researchers about AI safety" offers this:

AI Safety in China

4
0
0

Both Human Compatible and the Alignment Newsletter have translations into Mandarin. There are also translations that are potentially less alignment-specific, like Life 3.0, The Precipice, Technical Countermeasures for Security Risks of Artificial General Intelligence, etc.

JakubK2
0
0

That's great. Seems that these days all the Alignment Newsletter translations go directly onto the English website.

Reply
1
Xiaohu Zhu
I have already made Alignment Newsletter sync now. 

Michael Huang

4
0
0

Translation is a great idea.

It was one of the winners of the Future Fund’s Project Ideas Competition, and it's now listed on the project ideas page.

A problem unique to Chinese content is to ensure that it doesn't get blocked by their internet censorship policy.

JakubK1
0
0

Excellent, I'm happy to see that! However, I'm concerned that the proposal focuses entirely on translating general EA concepts.

Publications we might start with include effectivealtruism.org, the 80,000 Hours ‘key idea’ series, and Toby Ord’s The Precipice.

I think it is much higher priority (from the perspective of reducing AI x-risk) to translate AI alignment concepts, particularly the AGI Safety Fundamentals course material. It takes a lot of inferences to go from "I'm interested in doing good" to "I like EA ideas" to "I think AI alignment is important" t... (read more)

Reply
JakubK7
0
0

Thanks for sharing these. The Chinese Association for AGI appears to focus on advancing AI capabilities rather than AI safety. I used Google Translate to translate the lead paragraph of the website's current opening page:

Notice of the 7th China General Artificial Intelligence Annual Conference

The China General Artificial Intelligence Annual Conference has been successfully held for six consecutive sessions. It is an annual event for Chinese general artificial intelligence enthusiasts, involving computer science, philosophy, logic, education, psychology, sociology, law, medicine and other disciplines. In order to better demonstrate and promote the research and application of general artificial intelligence, the 7th China General Artificial Intelligence Annual Conference in 2022 will be held at Northwest University for Nationalities in Lanzhou City.

Reply
Comments1
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
KwanYee10
0
0

Hi jskatt, great question! I’m a research analyst at Concordia and this is what I said in my Feb 2022 SERI talk re: AI alignment/safety-sympathetic resources/institutions in China:

“Over the past few years, Chinese researchers and policy stakeholders have demonstrated increasing interest in AI safety. 

For instance, last year two AI scientists from China’s AI Strategic Advisory Committee, which advises national policy on AI, wrote an article talking about the risks from AGI and potential countermeasures. The two scientists, Huang Tiejun and Gao Wen, along with their colleagues, present a summary of possible approaches to alignment based on Nick Bostrom’s book, Superintelligence, and cite other classic works in the Western AI alignment community like Concrete Problems in AI Safety and Life 3.0. The article acknowledged the relative lack of attention to AGI safety in China, and recommended “examining international discussions…of AGI policies, integrating cutting-edge legal and ethical findings, and exploring the elements of China’s AGI policymaking in a deeper and more timely manner.”

In the same year, Huang Tiejun and the chairperson of one of China’s top AI labs, the Beijing Academy of AI, endorsed the Chinese translation of Human Compatible, a book on AI alignment written by Professor Stuart Russell, who’ll be speaking at this conference tomorrow. Zhang Hongjiang also participated in a dialogue with Stuart at one of China’s most prestigious AI conferences, talking about the book and AGI safety.  

But despite these cases of high-profile support for AGI safety, many Chinese AI safety researchers focus on areas like robustness and interpretability instead of more alignment-relevant topics like goal specification.”

Separately, the org I work at – Concordia – aims to promote the safe and responsible development of AI, with a particular focus on China (more). For example, we recently wrapped up the first ever lecture series on AI alignment in China, which included speakers Rohin Shah, Max Tegmark, David Krueger, Paul Christiano, Brian Christian, and Jacob Steinhardt. To market this lecture series, we also translated a bunch of AI alignment works from English into Chinese. 

I’d be happy to have a chat about this, just messaged you.

Reply
More from JakubK
44
Notes on "the hot mess theory of AI misalignment"
JakubK
·
3
3
31
List of lists of EA syllabi
JakubK
· · 1m read
6
6
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 47m read
 · 
Thank you to Arepo and Eli Lifland for looking over this article for errors.  I am sorry that this article is so long. Every time I thought I was done with it I ran into more issues with the model, and I wanted to be as thorough as I could. I’m not going to blame anyone for skimming parts of this article.  Note that the majority of this article was written before Eli’s updated model was released (the site was updated june 8th). His new model improves on some of my objections, but the majority still stand.   Introduction: AI 2027 is an article written by the “AI futures team”. The primary piece is a short story penned by Scott Alexander, depicting a month by month scenario of a near-future where AI becomes superintelligent in 2027,proceeding to automate the entire economy in only a year or two and then either kills us all or does not kill us all, depending on government policies.  What makes AI 2027 different from other similar short stories is that it is presented as a forecast based on rigorous modelling and data analysis from forecasting experts. It is accompanied by five appendices of “detailed research supporting these predictions” and a codebase for simulations. They state that “hundreds” of people reviewed the text, including AI expert Yoshua Bengio, although some of these reviewers only saw bits of it. The scenario in the short story is not the median forecast for any AI futures author, and none of the AI2027 authors actually believe that 2027 is the median year for a singularity to happen. But the argument they make is that 2027 is a plausible year, and they back it up with images of sophisticated looking modelling like the following: This combination of compelling short story and seemingly-rigorous research may have been the secret sauce that let the article to go viral and be treated as a serious project:To quote the authors themselves: It’s been a crazy few weeks here at the AI Futures Project. Almost a million people visited our webpage; 166,00
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- > Despite setbacks, battery cages are on the retreat My colleague Emma Buckland contributed (excellent) research to this piece. All opinions and errors are mine alone. It’s deadline time. Over the last decade, many of the world’s largest food companies — from McDonald’s to Walmart — pledged to stop sourcing eggs from caged hens in at least their biggest markets. All in, over 2,700 companies globally have now pledged to go cage-free. Good things take time, and companies insisted they needed a lot of it to transition their egg supply chains — most set 2025 deadlines to do so. Over the years, companies reassured anxious advocates that their transitions were on track. But now, with just seven months left, it turns out that many are not. Walmart backtracked first, blaming both its customers and suppliers, who “have not kept pace with our aspiration to transition to a full cage-free egg supply chain.” Kroger soon followed suit. Others, like Target, waited until the last minute, when they could blame bird flu and high egg prices for their backtracks. Then there are those who have just gone quiet. Some, like Subway and Best Western, still insist they’ll be 100% cage-free by year’s end, but haven’t shared updates on their progress in years. Others, like Albertsons and Marriott, are sharing their progress, but have quietly removed their pledges to reach 100% cage-free. Opportunistic politicians are now getting in on the act. Nevada’s Republican governor recently delayed his state’s impending ban on caged eggs by 120 days. Arizona’s Democratic governor then did one better by delaying her state’s ban by seven years. US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins is trying to outdo them all by pushing Congress to wipe out all stat
 ·  · 13m read
 · 
  There is dispute among EAs--and the general public more broadly--about whether morality is objective.  So I thought I'd kick off a debate about this, and try to draw more people into reading and posting on the forum!  Here is my opening volley in the debate, and I encourage others to respond.   Unlike a lot of effective altruists and people in my segment of the internet, I am a moral realist.  I think morality is objective.  I thought I'd set out to defend this view.   Let’s first define moral realism. It’s the idea that there are some stance independent moral truths. Something is stance independent if it doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks or feels about it. So, for instance, that I have arms is stance independently true—it doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks about it. That ice cream is tasty is stance dependently true; it might be tasty to me but not to you, and a person who thinks it’s not tasty isn’t making an error. So, in short, moral realism is the idea that there are things that you should or shouldn’t do and that this fact doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks about them. So, for instance, suppose you take a baby and hit it with great force with a hammer. Moral realism says: 1. You’re doing something wrong. 2. That fact doesn’t depend on anyone’s beliefs about it. You approving of it, or the person appraising the situation approving of it, or society approving of it doesn’t determine its wrongness (of course, it might be that what makes its wrong is its effects on the baby, resulting in the baby not approving of it, but that’s different from someone’s higher-level beliefs about the act. It’s an objective fact that a particular person won a high-school debate round, even though that depended on what the judges thought). Moral realism says that some moral statements are true and this doesn’t depend on what people think about it. Now, there are only three possible ways any particular moral statement can fail to be stance independently true: 1. It’s
Recent opportunities in AI safety
2
AI Safety Collab 2025 Summer - Local Organizer Sign-ups Open
Evander H. 🔸, gergo, ENAIS
· · 1m read
0
0
110
Digital sentience funding opportunities: Support for applied work and research
zdgroff, Longview Philanthropy
· · 4m read
0
0
69
FLF Fellowship on AI for Human Reasoning: $25-50k, 12 weeks
Oliver Sourbut
·
2
2
View more