Changelog

New Features:

• Added Ctrl+Z/Ctrl+Y undo/redo - experiment freely and roll back mistakes
• 🚀 Set ambition level - rescales % so you can extend a project^[1]
• 📸 Copy graph to clipboard - Easy grabbing the image
• Dotted reference lines drop from each point to show exact dollar amounts and to the left for exact % amounts^[2]
• Clear notification - Shows "Points cleared - press Ctrl+Z to undo" when you clear all points
• 🧲 Snap to Grid - Enable magnetic snapping to round numbers (off by default)
• Right click to add text to breakpoints^[3] 
• Smart currency input - type "90k" or "1.5M" and it auto-converts
• Input validation with helpful error messages
• Touch scrolling fixed - Dragging points on mobile doesn't scroll the page anymore

Language Updates:

• Guide describes all features properly
• Changed "Utility" → "Impact" throughout (less jargon!)
• New title: "Plot Your Impact at Different Funding Levels"
• Clearer subtitle mentions sharing with funders
• Added watermark with stable URL

Accessibility

• Keyboard navigation - Can focus and navigate the graph with keyboard
• Screen reader support - All buttons labeled, status messages announced
• Modal focus trap - Can't accidentally tab outside modal dialog

1. ^{^}

   

2. ^{^}

   

3. ^{^}

   

The actual logistics of donating stock are a pain.

If they set up an every.org page it looks straightforward? e.g. select stock on this

I've been doing this self-funded for quite a few years^[1] and would be enthusiastic to talk to anyone who gets this position, to swap models and contacts.

1. ^{^}

   This has produced https://www.aisafety.com/ (including the map of AI Safety, list of funders, and the events&training newsletter)  https://aisafety.info/ (including a RAG chatbot powered by the Alignment Research Dataset we maintain) https://alignment.dev/ https://www.affi.ne/ plus lots of minor projects and a couple more major ones upcoming.

I vouch for Severin being highly skilled at mediating conflicts.

Also, smouldering conflicts provide more drag to cohesion execution than most people realize until it's resolved. Try this out if you have even a slight suspicion it might help.

Also we're currently working with an artist to make a much upgraded background image. Happy to connect you if you're able to collect up some funding and would like a nice professional map.

Nice to see this idea spreading! I bet Hamish would be happy to share the code we use for aisafety.world if that's helpful. There's a version on this github, but I'm not certain that's the latest code. Drop by AED if you'd like to talk.

I don't claim it's impossible that nature survives an AI apocalypse which kills off humanity, but I do think it's an extremely thin sliver of the outcome space (<0.1%). What odds would you assign to this?

Thanks! Feel free to leave comments or suggestions on the google docs which make up our backend.

Whether AI would wipe out humans entirely is a separate question (and one which has been debated extensively, to the point where I don't think I have much to add to that conversation, even if I have opinions)

What I'm arguing for here is narrowly: Would AI which wipes out humans leave nature intact? I think the answer to that is pretty clearly no by default.

(cross posting my reply to your cross-posted comment)

I'm not arguing about p(total human extinction|superintelligence), but p(nature survives|total human extinction from superintelligence), as this conditional probability I see people getting very wrong sometimes.

It's not implausible to me that we survive due to decision theoretic reasons, this seems possible though not my default expectation (I mostly expect Decision theory does not imply we get nice things, unless we manually win a decent chunk more timelines than I expect).

My confidence is in the claim "if AI wipes out humans, it will wipe out nature". I don't engage with counterarguments to a separate claim, as that is beyond the scope of this post and I don't have much to add over existing literature like the other posts you linked.