New AI risks research institute at Oxford University
post by lukeprog · 2011-11-16T18:52:09.519Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 10 commentsThe Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology (aka FutureTech) is a new research department at Oxford University, roughly a spin-off of FHI, but focusing on AI and nanotech risks and differential technological development. Like FHI, this department is directed by Nick Bostrom. They'll be hiring more researchers soon. Basically, this means more people and money being devoted to existential risk reduction.
Okay, now back to work.
10 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by betterthanwell · 2011-11-17T02:32:16.238Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Brilliant! I really liked Stuart Armstrong's talk on AI Boxing. Paper here.
SIAI's "brand" of research is being pursued at Oxford. Nice.
The aforementioned talk (and paper) should be of interest to Holden Karnofsky of GiveWell,
as they address his points of disagreement with Jaan Tallinn.
↑ comment by CarlShulman · 2011-11-17T03:20:16.890Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
SIAI folk visiting Oxford participated in the discussions leading into that, as noted in the acknowledgments, so it's even less of a coincidence than it appears.
↑ comment by Stuart_Armstrong · 2011-11-17T10:16:27.996Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks :-)
comment by MichaelHoward · 2011-11-16T20:39:40.466Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
How is this funded?
If someone currently has a monthly donation going to FHI, is it worth them contacting Oxford & asking for the donation to be registered against FutureTech instead? I imagine it would be more in need of funding than FHI right now as it's just starting but maybe it already has a big donor.
Replies from: lukeprog, rhollerith_dot_com↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-11-16T21:08:27.958Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As I understand it, both FHI and FutureTech are funded mostly by their founder, superhero James Martin.
Replies from: MichaelHoward↑ comment by MichaelHoward · 2011-11-18T16:18:39.691Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wanted to leave this, but it's been preying on my mind. I'm sure you meant well & with the upvotes it's getting I'm probably misreading it so hopefully someone will correct my perceptions.
In context of what it was answering, to me it reads "Non-rich readers, your donation's not really needed at FHI and FutureTech, fund us instead!"
Score one for my new LW-gained instinct for dragging things I really don't want to think about into the open and throwing a spotlight on them.
I know SIAI specifically gains benefit from having a certain amount of money come from smaller donors. If there is real utility being misplaced here, and I imagine those directly involved with SIAI or FHI might not be able to bring up the subject for obvious reasons, the rest of us need to take the initiative and talk about it.
If this is something that Really Must Not Be Spoken, someone from SIAI send me a PM, I'll trust your judgement & delete this comment no questions asked.
Replies from: lukeprog↑ comment by lukeprog · 2011-11-18T18:26:44.279Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"Non-rich readers, your donation's not really needed at FHI and FutureTech, fund us instead!"
No, that's not something I meant to communicate. On funding SIAI vs. FHI, Nick and I have already spoken.
↑ comment by RHollerith (rhollerith_dot_com) · 2011-11-16T21:10:10.454Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It's called the Oxford Martin Program, and Martin is the billionaire or near-billionaire who is the main donor to FHI.
comment by XiXiDu · 2012-01-22T13:13:54.064Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Added a list of organisations, charities and resources concerned with existential risk research to the Wiki.