# Survey on intermediate goals in AI governance

It seems that a key bottleneck for the field of longtermism-aligned AI governance is limited strategic clarity (see [Muehlhauser, 2020](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/our-ai-governance-grantmaking-so-far/), [2021](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/M2SBwctwC6vBqAmZW/a-personal-take-on-longtermist-ai-governance#Key_bottlenecks:~:text=Bottleneck%20%232%3A%20We,work%2C%20and%20also%3A)). As one effort to increase strategic clarity, in October-November 2022, we sent a survey to 229 people we had reason to believe are knowledgeable about longtermist AI governance, receiving 107 responses. We asked about: 

*   respondents’ “theory of victory” for AI risk (which we defined as the main, high-level “plan” they’d propose for how humanity could plausibly manage the development and deployment of transformative AI such that we get long-lasting good outcomes),
*   how they’d feel about funding going to each of 53 potential “intermediate goals” for AI governance,[^23lhdssvd0x]
*   what other intermediate goals they’d suggest,
*   how high they believe the risk of existential catastrophe from AI is, and
*   when they expect [transformative AI](https://docs.google.com/document/d/15siOkHQAoSBl_Pu85UgEDWfmvXFotzub31ow3A11Xvo/edit) (TAI) to be developed.

We hope the results will be useful to funders, policymakers, people at AI labs, researchers, field-builders, people orienting to longtermist AI governance, and perhaps other types of people. For example, the report could: 

*   Broaden the range of options people can easily consider
*   Help people assess how much and in what way to focus on each potential “theory of victory”, “intermediate goal”, etc.
*   Target and improve further efforts to assess how much and in what way to focus on each potential theory of victory, intermediate goal, etc.

**If you'd like to see a summary of the survey results, please request access to **[**this folder**](https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1XVEWyVsxRs1aMKR3Lj0OvDStWchV5Lpj)**.** We expect to approve all access requests,[^yuwfxvco8kh] and will expect readers to abide by the policy articulated in "About sharing information from this report" (for the reasons explained there). 

Acknowledgments
===============

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/cea/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/g4fXhiJyj6tdBhuBK/rcfinlzajllgxdrkfezz)

*This report is a project of *[*Rethink Priorities*](https://rethinkpriorities.org/)*–a think tank dedicated to informing decisions made by high-impact organizations and funders across various cause areas. The project was commissioned by Open Philanthropy. Full acknowledgements can be found in the linked "Introduction & summary" document. *

*If you are interested in RP’s work, please visit our *[*research database*](https://www.rethinkpriorities.org/research) *and subscribe to our*[*newsletter*](https://www.rethinkpriorities.org/newsletter)*. *

[^23lhdssvd0x]: Here’s the definition of “intermediate goal” that we stated in the survey itself: By an intermediate goal, we mean any goal for reducing extreme AI risk that’s more specific and directly actionable than a high-level goal like ‘reduce existential AI accident risk’ but is less specific and directly actionable than a particular intervention. In another context (global health and development), examples of potential intermediate goals could include ‘develop better/cheaper malaria vaccines’ and ‘improve literacy rates in Sub-Saharan Africa’. 

[^yuwfxvco8kh]: If two days after you request access you still haven't received access, this is probably just due to a mistake or delay on our end, so please request access again.