# Express interest in an "FHI of the West"

*TLDR: I am investigating whether to found a spiritual successor to* [*FHI*](https://www.futureofhumanityinstitute.org/)*, housed under* [*Lightcone Infrastructure*](https://lightconeinfrastructure.com/)*, providing a rich cultural environment and financial support to researchers and entrepreneurs in the intellectual tradition of the Future of Humanity Institute.* [*Fill out this form*](https://airtable.com/app8ibPsfkb0Bih0t/pagYklvlogTnsW5BW/form) *or comment below to express interest in being involved either as a researcher, entrepreneurial founder-type, or funder.*

* * *

The Future of Humanity Institute [is dead](https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/):

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/aec1c60c38c1d7deee3000ac923f59b1b0ffe660ad79f089.png)I knew that this was going to happen in some form or another for a year or two, having heard through the grapevine and private conversations of FHI's university-imposed hiring freeze and fundraising block, and so I have been thinking about how to best fill the hole in the world that FHI left behind. 

I think FHI was one of the best intellectual institutions in history. Many of the most important concepts[^eewu9dyt587] in my intellectual vocabulary were developed and popularized under its roof, and many crucial considerations that form the bedrock of my current life plans were discovered and explained there (including the concept of [crucial considerations](https://www.alignmentforum.org/tag/crucial-considerations) itself).

With the death of FHI (as well as MIRI moving away from research towards advocacy), there no longer exists a place for broadly-scoped research on the most crucial considerations for humanity's future. The closest place I can think of that currently houses that kind of work is the Open Philanthropy worldview investigation team, which houses e.g. Joe Carlsmith, but my sense is Open Philanthropy is really not the best vehicle for that kind of work. 

While many of the ideas that FHI was working on have found traction in other places in the world (like right here on LessWrong), I do think that with the death of FHI, there no longer exists any place where researchers who want to think about the future of humanity in an open ended way can work with other people in a high-bandwidth context, or get operational support for doing so. That seems bad. 

So I am thinking about fixing it (and have been jokingly internally referring to my plans for doing so as "creating an FHI of the West"[^sb6pbo6h59f]). Anders Sandberg, in his oral history of FHI, wrote the following as [his best guess of what made FHI work](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/660e95991cf0293c2463bcc8/t/661a3fc3cecceb2b8ffce80d/1712996303164/FHI+Final+Report.pdf): 

> What would it take to replicate FHI, and would it be a good idea? Here are some considerations for why it became what it was:
> 
> *   Concrete object-level intellectual activity in core areas and finding and enabling top people were always the focus. Structure, process, plans, and hierarchy were given minimal weight (which sometimes backfired - flexible structure is better than little structure, but as organization size increases more structure is needed).
> *   Tolerance for eccentrics. Creating a protective bubble to shield them from larger University bureaucracy as much as possible (but do not ignore institutional politics!).
> *   Short-term renewable contracts. \[...\] Maybe about 30% of people given a job at FHI were offered to have their contracts extended after their initial contract ran out. A side-effect was to filter for individuals who truly loved the intellectual work we were doing, as opposed to careerists.
> *   Valued: insights, good ideas, intellectual honesty, focusing on what’s important, interest in other disciplines, having interesting perspectives and thoughts to contribute on a range of relevant topics.
> *   Deemphasized: the normal academic game, credentials, mainstream acceptance, staying in one’s lane, organizational politics.
> *   Very few organizational or planning meetings. Most meetings were only to discuss ideas or present research, often informally.

Some additional things that came up in a conversation I had with Bostrom himself about this: 

*   A strong culture that gives people guidance on what things to work on, and helps researchers and entrepreneurs within the organization coordinate
*   A bunch of logistical and operational competence to handle visas, start new entrepreneurial projects, provide infrastructure necessary for various types of research, handle fundraising and external relations, etc. 

My sense is Lightcone is pretty well-placed for doing a good job at these, having supported a lot of related research through our work on LessWrong, having [a fully outfitted campus in Downtown Berkeley](https://www.lighthaven.space/), having a lot of established relationships with many researchers in adjacent fields, and not being particularly beholden to any conservative and bureaucratic institutions threatening to smother us the same way the University of Oxford smothered FHI.

One of the key uncertainties that I have is whether there is a critical mass of great researchers to support that would want to work with me and others in the space. My best guess is I could fundraise for something like this, and I feel good about my ability to cultivate a good culture and to handle the logistics and operations of such an organization well, but I have less of a sense of who might be interested in being part of such an organization. I also of course think Bostrom was a more skilled researcher than anyone working at Lightcone right now, and his taste played a large role, and that at least suggests anything I run would look quite different from what FHI looked like.

So this post is a call for people to register interest in joining or supporting such an institution. You can fill out this form with a bunch of questions, or comment below with your thoughts about what kind of thing you might be most interested in participating in: 

P.S. Bostrom himself wrote a poem about the FHI. For April 1st me and my team turned it into a song that you can listen to [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLHS43Wo1As).

[^eewu9dyt587]: Some examples of concepts coined or developed at FHI that I use frequently (quoting this EA Forum comment):The concept of existential risk, and arguments for treating x-risk reduction as a global priority (see: The Precipice)Arguments for x-risk from AI, and other philosophical considerations around superintelligent AI (see: Superintelligence)Arguments for the scope and importance of humanity's long-term future (since called longtermism)Information hazardsObserver selection effects and ‘anthropic shadow’Bounding natural extinction rates with statistical methodsThe vulnerable world hypothesisMoral tradeCrucial considerationsThe unilteralist's curseDissolving the Fermi paradoxThe reversal test in applied ethics'Comprehensive AI services' as an alternative to unipolar outcomesThe concept of existential hope 

[^sb6pbo6h59f]: Among college campuses there seems to be a somewhat common trope to call yourself "the Harvard of the West" or "the Harvard of the Midwest", in a somewhat clear exaggeration of the actual quality of the university. This became more of an ongoing and recurring joke when Kennedy visited the University of Michigan Ann Arbor which had often been called (unclear whether intended as a joke or seriously) the "Harvard of the Midwest" and identified himself (as a Harvard graduate) as "a graduate of the Michigan of the East".