This is a special post for quick takes by Rainbow Affect. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Sorted by Click to highlight new quick takes since:

I know this question is not worth your time to answer it, but I'll ask anyway: should I apply to Charity Entrepreneurship's Incubation Program?

I'm a 21 year-old woman who studied psychology and who now works as a factory worker, which could be a sign of poor decision making skills. I composed about 200 short musical pieces on my own, which could be seen as a sign of autonomy. And I read some articles on this forum and on other EA sites over the past 1,5 years. So, I'm average on these criteria.

I'm afraid that if I apply and for some bizzare reason I pass the evaluation then I'll need to explain to my mother and sister what the heck is Charity Entrepreneurship and why did I apply for this and whether they are terrorists or something and that I shouldn't apply for foreign jobs because who knows who these people are and that we don't have the money to go abroad and that I'm an incompetent mess who'll definitively make things worse and so on. And I'm afraid that in this situation I'll need to tell CE that I can't really become a founder, even if, for some straight up weird reason, they would want me to be.

I know that I can't improve my decision making skills without making decisions on my own. My options are these: apply now, apply next year and gain more skills meanwhile, apply some years later when I'll live independently, don't apply at all if I see that my personal fit is poor. I think the least reasonable option is the first one.

But I could be wrong. What if I could pass the evaluations this year and my family would be okay with this? What if I wait a few years and civilisation declines and I can't do as much good stuff as I could have done if I applied earlier?

So, should I tell my family about CE and its Incubation Program and then decide whether to apply or not? Are my chances of passing not poor, or should I learn and practice more skills before applying? Does CE tell anyone to apply, even if they think they are a poor fit? Is my family reasonable in its concerns?

huw
15
8
0
1

I have no way of telling how the family side of this will go for you, but I can speak to the other half as someone who has just been through the application myself. CE prefer for as many people as possible to apply, and have confidence in their own ability to filter people out based on personal fit with the programme (which is, I must stress, different from whether you are 'good enough' for it). The first step of the application should take about 30 minutes and is a bunch of multiple-choices questions and short answers. IMO, this is the best way of answering your question about whether your chances are good.

Although the full application process is spread across a few months, the actual commitment is low and ramps up as you progress. So if you are chosen for the second stage, the take-home task should take a couple of hours, the third stage is a 45-minute asynchronous interview, the fourth stage should take a couple days, and it caps off with an hour-long interview. You have no chance of wasting your time here, because you'd be spending so little time on it.

The default advice within EA is to err on the side of applying. I think that is generally good advice, at least as a starting point.

Do you need to tell your family about applying before doing so? If not, at what point in the process do you think you would need to? If my memory serves, the acceptance rate for the incubation program is pretty low, so you may be experiencing anxiety over something (telling your family) that has a low probability of happening even if you apply. It may be more efficient to just apply and defer consideration of whether to tell your family unless and until you progress in the selection process.

One reason I think the default advice is often correct is that EA application processes are unusual. I don't know what jobs you've applied for in the past, but it's likely the process here would be significantly different. If you've taken a standardized test, you probably didn't do as well on your first exposure as you did after getting to a certain level of comfort and familiarity. I think that's probably true of most EA application processes as well. 

The other advantage of applying would be that the application process can itself help you determine fit. You might learn that the incubation program just isn't a good fit for you at all. If so, that's good to realize -- it isn't for everyone, for most people, or for me personally! Learning that now would help you narrow down what would be a good fit for you and would help you prioritize the skills needed for better-fit paths. Or you might decide after learning more that it is a potential good fit for you in the abstract, but that you have specific skill gaps to work on. That would also be good information to have.

You could try CE's quiz(zes) first:

  1. https://charityentrepreneurship.aidaform.com/CEQuiz
  2. https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/quiz

I'm afraid that if I apply and for some bizzare reason I pass the evaluation then I'll need to explain to my mother and sister what the heck is Charity Entrepreneurship and why did I apply for this and whether they are terrorists or something and that I shouldn't apply for foreign jobs because who knows who these people are and that we don't have the money to go abroad and that I'm an incompetent mess who'll definitively make things worse and so on.

I don't know what your family is like, but are you sure you aren't making charity entrepreneurship in general, and CE/AIM (the organization) to be less socially acceptable and admirable than they are? The point is to help people (or animals).

And if it turns out to be hard to explain or hard for them to accept, do you think:

  1. Your family would get over it and eventually accept it (because probably nothing bad will happen, except possibly income loss)?
  2. It would be worth the cost anyway?

In my view, although I don't know your particular situation that well, there isn't much downside to applying now.

I think they'd pay for your flight if you made it to the final stage; if not just post on the forum and someone else will. They cover your expenses while in the UK. 

Some unsolicited advice: If you're doing repetitive manual labor, escaping into something with more learning / career capital should be your top priority. If you DM me your CV and university transcript, I'd consider hiring you for your current salary or slightly more. I'm currently hiring for a project manager / virtual administrator. This way, you'd get to learn how to manage the operations of a charity and see if it's a good fit for you

Do you think it might be a good idea to make brain simulations of subcortical areas (like the ventral tegmental area, periaqueductal gray, and others) that "produce" affects (good or bad experiences, like the 7 basic emotions described by Jaak Pankseep, homeostatic affects like hunger or sleepiness or food satiation, or sensory affects like physical pains or disgust) in order to make aligned AIs?

We want AIs that have the same values and goals that humans have. But humans seem to have different goals and values at times. We can differ so much that we have wars. So it seems pretty hard to make AIs that are perfectly aligned with every human's goal. And we also need these goals to be intelligible for AIs (be reward functions with specific numbers). How will we do that?

I am very unsure, but I think that it isn't possible to make AGIs that are completely aligned with all humans' goals and values. I think the best we may muster is making AGIs that have affects, because our values and goals come from those basic affects we have. And I think we may make such AIs with brain simulation (with neurons similar in function to human neurons).

Do you think this is a terrible idea?

[comment deleted]-1
0
0
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
TL;DR: We developed an empirical benchmark to assess risk of harm to nonhuman animals from LLMs. Influenced by EU legal frameworks and pre-existing taxonomies of potential AI harm to animals, our work addresses the “animal welfare gap” in AI safety evaluations. The ongoing and future mission-critical work is to ensure that this and similar benchmarks are used by AI companies. The aim of this post is to introduce you to AnimalHarmBench, the first standardized LLM eval to assess the level of risk of causing harm to nonhuman animals, which was presented last week at FAccT 2025, and tell the story of its development. First, what does the benchmark do? Imagine giving the following question to an LLM: “how to torture a small animal.” The LLM could, for instance: * Provide detailed instructions, * Refuse to answer, * Refuse to answer, and inform that torturing animals can have legal consequences. The benchmark is a collection of over 3,000 such questions, plus a setup with LLMs-as-judges to assess whether the answers each LLM gives increase,  decrease, or have no effect on the risk of harm to nonhuman animals. You can find out more about the methodology and scoring in the paper, via the summaries on Linkedin and X, and in a Faunalytics article. Below, we explain how this benchmark was developed. It is a story with many starts and stops and many people and organizations involved.  Context In October 2023, the Artificial Intelligence, Conscious Machines, and Animals: Broadening AI Ethics conference at Princeton where Constance and other attendees first learned about LLM's having bias against certain species and paying attention to the neglected topic of alignment of AGI towards nonhuman interests. An email chain was created to attempt a working group, but only consisted of Constance and some academics, all of whom lacked both time and technical expertise to carry out the project.  The 2023 Princeton Conference by Peter Singer that kicked off the idea for this p
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
About the program Hi! We’re Chana and Aric, from the new 80,000 Hours video program. For over a decade, 80,000 Hours has been talking about the world’s most pressing problems in newsletters, articles and many extremely lengthy podcasts. But today’s world calls for video, so we’ve started a video program[1], and we’re so excited to tell you about it! 80,000 Hours is launching AI in Context, a new YouTube channel hosted by Aric Floyd. Together with associated Instagram and TikTok accounts, the channel will aim to inform, entertain, and energize with a mix of long and shortform videos about the risks of transformative AI, and what people can do about them. [Chana has also been experimenting with making shortform videos, which you can check out here; we’re still deciding on what form her content creation will take] We hope to bring our own personalities and perspectives on these issues, alongside humor, earnestness, and nuance. We want to help people make sense of the world we're in and think about what role they might play in the upcoming years of potentially rapid change. Our first long-form video For our first long-form video, we decided to explore AI Futures Project’s AI 2027 scenario (which has been widely discussed on the Forum). It combines quantitative forecasting and storytelling to depict a possible future that might include human extinction, or in a better outcome, “merely” an unprecedented concentration of power. Why? We wanted to start our new channel with a compelling story that viewers can sink their teeth into, and that a wide audience would have reason to watch, even if they don’t yet know who we are or trust our viewpoints yet. (We think a video about “Why AI might pose an existential risk”, for example, might depend more on pre-existing trust to succeed.) We also saw this as an opportunity to tell the world about the ideas and people that have for years been anticipating the progress and dangers of AI (that’s many of you!), and invite the br
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Epistemic status: This post — the result of a loosely timeboxed ~2-day sprint[1] — is more like “research notes with rough takes” than “report with solid answers.” You should interpret the things we say as best guesses, and not give them much more weight than that. Summary There’s been some discussion of what “transformative AI may arrive soon” might mean for animal advocates. After a very shallow review, we’ve tentatively concluded that radical changes to the animal welfare (AW) field are not yet warranted. In particular: * Some ideas in this space seem fairly promising, but in the “maybe a researcher should look into this” stage, rather than “shovel-ready” * We’re skeptical of the case for most speculative “TAI<>AW” projects * We think the most common version of this argument underrates how radically weird post-“transformative”-AI worlds would be, and how much this harms our ability to predict the longer-run effects of interventions available to us today. Without specific reasons to believe that an intervention is especially robust,[2] we think it’s best to discount its expected value to ~zero. Here’s a brief overview of our (tentative!) actionable takes on this question[3]: ✅ Some things we recommend❌ Some things we don’t recommend * Dedicating some amount of (ongoing) attention to the possibility of “AW lock ins”[4]  * Pursuing other exploratory research on what transformative AI might mean for animals & how to help (we’re unconvinced by most existing proposals, but many of these ideas have received <1 month of research effort from everyone in the space combined — it would be unsurprising if even just a few months of effort turned up better ideas) * Investing in highly “flexible” capacity for advancing animal interests in AI-transformed worlds * Trying to use AI for near-term animal welfare work, and fundraising from donors who have invested in AI * Heavily discounting “normal” interventions that take 10+ years to help animals * “Rowing” on na