Do you get the impression that Japan has numerous benevolent and talented researchers who could and would contribute meaningfully to AI safety work? If so, it seems possible to me that your comparative advantage is in evangelism rather than research (subject to the constraint that you're staying in Japan indefinitely). If you're able to send multiple qualified Japanese researchers west, that's potentially more than you'd be able to do as an individual.

You'd still want to have thorough knowledge of the issues yourself, if only to convince Japanese researchers that the problems were interesting.

I think that there's not much more that most individuals can do about x-risk as a full-time pursuit than we can as aware and interested civilians.

I also think that unfriendly AI Foom is a small part of the disaster space, compared to the current volume of unfriendly natural intelligence we face. Increase in destructive power of small (or not-so-small) groups of humans seems 20-1000x more likely (and I generally think toward the higher end of that) to filter us than a single or small number of AI entities becoming powerful enough to do so.

I recently had an idea for an app that would make use of natural language processing and provide a service to businesses doing online marketing. I think there's a pretty good chance businesses would be willing to pay for this service, and after a quick Google search, I don't think there are companies doing anything similar yet. If you or anyone else interested in AI safety wants to hear more, feel free to send me a PM.

So you think that other people could contribute much more to x-risk

"marginal" in that sentence was meant literally - the additional contribution to the cause that you're considering. Actually, I think there's not much room for anybody to contribute large amounts to x-risk mitigation. Most people (and since I know nothing of you, I put you in that class) will do more good for humanity by working at something that improves near-term situations than by working on theoretical and unlikely problems.

I'm currently working on an AI strategy project for the Foundational Research Institute; they are hiring and do not require plenty of experience:

Requirements

• Language requirement is research proficiency in English.
• We anticipate that an applicant is dedicated to alleviating and preventing suffering, and considers it the top global priority.
• A successful applicant will probably have a background in quantitative topics such as game theory, decision theory, computer science, physics, or math. But we welcome applicants regardless of background.
• Peer-reviewed publications or a track record of completed comparable research output is not required, but a plus.
• There is no degree requirement, although a PhD is an advantage, all else equal.

Their open research questions include a number of AI-related ones, and I expect many of them to still have plenty of low-hanging fruit. I'm working on getting a better handle on hard takeoff scnearios in general; most of the my results so far can be found on my website under the "fri-funded" tag. (Haven't posted anything new in a while, because I'm working on a larger article that's been taking some time.)

Maybe translating AI safety literature into Japanese would be a high-value use of your time ?

Currently most AI safety research happens in the West. On the one hand it means that there are more jobs for it in the West. On the other hand it might mean that AI safety is neglegted in Japan and China.

How do you see the AI safety landscape in Japan?

That's awesome that you are looking to work on AI safety. Here are some options that I don't see you mentioning:

• If you're able to get a job working on AI or machine learning, you'll be getting paid to improve your skills in that area. So you might choose to direct your study and independent projects towards building a resume for AI work (e.g. by participating in Kaggle competitions).

• If you get in to the right graduate program, you'll be able to take classes and do research in to AI and ML topics.

• Probably quite difficult, but if you're able to create an app that uses AI or machine learning to make money, you'd also fulfill the goal of both making money and studying AI at the same time. For example, you could earn money through this stock market prediction competition.

• 80000 hours has a guide on using your career to work on AI risk.

• MIRI has set up a research guide for getting the background necessary to do AI safety work. (Note that if MIRI is correct, your understanding of math may be much more important than your understanding of AI in order to do AI safety research. So the previous plans I suggested might look less attractive. The best path might be to aim for a job doing AI work, and then once you have that, start studying math relevant to AI safety part time.)

BTW, the x risk career network is also a good place to ask questions like this. (Folks on that mailing list are probably more qualified than me to answer this question but they don't browse LW that often.)

I would endorse what John Maxwell has said but would be interested to hear more details.

After graduating, why would you need to be based in Kagoshima? Most postdocs travel around the world a lot in order to be with the leading experts and x-risk research is no different.

Have you taken a look at the content on MIRI's Agent Foundations forum?

Have you considered running a MIRIx workshop to practice AI safety research?

Have you considered applying to visit AI safety researchers at MIRI or FHI? That would help you to figure out where your interests and theirs overlap, and to consider how you might contribute. If you're not eligible to visit for some reason, that might imply that you're further from being useful than you thought.

Good luck!

Consider more carefully your ranking of preferences, and expand your horizons quite a bit. There're lots of ways to improve the predicted future state of humanity that are less direct, but possibly more effective, than this particular topic.

I care about the current and future state of humanity

That's sweet of you. I'm glad.

so I think it's good to work on existential or global catastrophic risk

That's a pretty big jump. I'll grant that human existential risk is important, but why is your best contribution to work directly on it? Perhaps you'd do a lot more good with a slight reduction in shipping costs or tiny improvements in safety or enjoyment of some consumer product. In the likely case that your marginal contribution to x-risk doesn't save the world, a small improvement for a large number of people does massive amounts more good.

Regardless of whether you focus on x-risk or something else valuable, the fact that you won't consider leaving Kagoshima is an indication that you aren't as fully committed as you claim. IMO, that's ok: we all have personal desires that we put ahead of the rest of the world. But you should acknowledge it and include it in your calculations.