Be advised: Due to the way that the Survival & Flourishing Fund does speculation grants, it is in some respects advantageous to your application if you apply far away from a round's deadline. E.g. right now.
Sounds interesting and i might have a slightly different take on intelligence and a possible project to explore. Maybe something for the SFF if i understand them correctly.
I would be very grateful for a quick look at my recent post from the lens of if you think the idea could be turned into an application and if so what parts that needs the most attention.
My post focus not so much on increasing IQ but rather how that is directed and more wisely used. As a clinical psychologist i see first hand how much resources worry, avoidance, addiction, relational conflict, perfectionism and other emotionally driven behaviors can consume.
Given the failures of certain universal mental health interventions in schools and not others i think we have something to learn and explore. A pattern is possible to discern and explain giving direction to future studies. Using AI we can now give universal access without uniform delivery and more easily create an iterative research structure creating new possibilities for more ambitious research projects.
The impact of such an effort can be amplified by the possible reallocation of current funds being spent on programs with no effect and in some cases even slight harm.
It's pretty far outside my wheelhouse. I'm focused on technological interventions.
The plan sounds like it needs more funding than SFF is likely to give for a project like this, without very strong results. (To be clear: I don't speak for SFF and am not employed by them; I participate as a speculation grantor.) You can see recent funding recommendations from SFF here: https://survivalandflourishing.fund/2026/recommendations
I don't know why this can't be funded by government or by other philanthropic organizations. I would encourage you to try to get funding that way.
Thanks for checking it out. And yes the ideal would be a funder that had the capacity to take the next step if the previous one was successfull. Although funding of a preliminary effort to explore the possibility of such a program would be a possible first grant.
The governmental funding oportunities at least in sweden is tied closely to universities and finance mostly small incremental researchefforts that are publishable. Psychological interventions receiving very small amounts. Thus i think a government is an unlikely funder.
I would be happy to know what other philanthropic organizations you would find most likely to be interested to investigate this kind of an effort. Do you have any suggestions?
My hope with the post was to receive feedback and that it could evolve into a more solid application for funding. My late night efforts on my own after a long days work and family life might not be sufficient to express the idea in its most precise, promising and impactful version.
I hoped also to maybe connect with people that could collectively drive this proposal forward.
Crossposted to Less Wrong
‘Like most of life’s dangers, the dangers of artificial intelligence are not easily identified from the armchair.’
J Dmitri Gallow
Epistemic status
I’m not an expert in this field, and herein I make some sweeping generalisations educated guesses about the overall...
Let’s imagine it’s November 2031. We’re both still here, AI is much more capable than it is today, but governments are governing, civilisation is still (mostly) civilised, and there has been no catastrophic loss of control. It just kind of didn’t happen.
What happens to the AI safety field then?
I expect people who currently believe catastrophe could happen within two or three years will start saying five or ten years. Then 15. Then ‘who cares if we’re a few decades of...
Thanks to Bruce Friedrich, Seth Ariel Green, Tobias Leenaert, Jan Willem Bolderdijk, Martine van Haperen, Herman Rohrbach, Chris Popa and Elizabeth Alvarez for comments. Claude helped structure the text. Ideas and mistakes are my own. I currently work with ProVeg International. The prize I propose would be defined and judged by an independent committee, and its money would fund scaling the winning solution(s), not ProVeg or the winner.
TL/DR
* EA could d...
Be advised: Due to the way that the Survival & Flourishing Fund does speculation grants, it is in some respects advantageous to your application if you apply far away from a round's deadline. E.g. right now.
https://survivalandflourishing.fund
I was a Recommender in a past Theme Round & I'm currently a speculation grantor. Some projects I'd be interested in making speculation grants to (though note that I'm not currently scheduled to be a Recommender in any round): https://lesswrong.com/posts/MBxSbzYECJEoeTkwZ/sff-s-hsee-grant-round-human-intelligence-amplification
In particular, I'm interested in reprogenetics: https://reprogeneticsinstitute.org/articles/Projects_that_might_help_accelerate_strong_reprogenetics.html
(Feel free to reach out to me if you have a relevant project.)
Sounds interesting and i might have a slightly different take on intelligence and a possible project to explore. Maybe something for the SFF if i understand them correctly.
I would be very grateful for a quick look at my recent post from the lens of if you think the idea could be turned into an application and if so what parts that needs the most attention.
My post focus not so much on increasing IQ but rather how that is directed and more wisely used. As a clinical psychologist i see first hand how much resources worry, avoidance, addiction, relational conflict, perfectionism and other emotionally driven behaviors can consume.
Given the failures of certain universal mental health interventions in schools and not others i think we have something to learn and explore. A pattern is possible to discern and explain giving direction to future studies. Using AI we can now give universal access without uniform delivery and more easily create an iterative research structure creating new possibilities for more ambitious research projects.
The impact of such an effort can be amplified by the possible reallocation of current funds being spent on programs with no effect and in some cases even slight harm.
This is the post: Closing the wisdom gap: Learning from the failure of universal school-based mental health interventions
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/dEm7h7vDW3iwLnsZi/closing-the-wisdom-gap-learning-from-the-failure-of
Thanks. It seems like a good project, but:
Thanks for checking it out. And yes the ideal would be a funder that had the capacity to take the next step if the previous one was successfull. Although funding of a preliminary effort to explore the possibility of such a program would be a possible first grant.
The governmental funding oportunities at least in sweden is tied closely to universities and finance mostly small incremental researchefforts that are publishable. Psychological interventions receiving very small amounts. Thus i think a government is an unlikely funder.
I would be happy to know what other philanthropic organizations you would find most likely to be interested to investigate this kind of an effort. Do you have any suggestions?
My hope with the post was to receive feedback and that it could evolve into a more solid application for funding. My late night efforts on my own after a long days work and family life might not be sufficient to express the idea in its most precise, promising and impactful version.
I hoped also to maybe connect with people that could collectively drive this proposal forward.