Rikki lee fletcher winnipeg


  • Our Donors
  • Journalists who wish to see the press release may contact Toby Walsh. Hosting, signature verification and list management are supported by FLI; for administrative questions about this letter, please contact Max Tegmark. They might include, for example, armed quadcopters that can search for and eliminate people meeting certain pre-defined criteria, but do not include cruise missiles or remotely piloted drones for which humans make all targeting decisions.

    Artificial Intelligence AI technology has reached a point where the deployment of such systems is — practically if not legally — feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms. Many arguments have been made for and against autonomous weapons, for example that replacing human soldiers by machines is good by reducing casualties for the owner but bad by thereby lowering the threshold for going to battle.

    The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or to prevent it from starting. If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow. Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce.

    It will only be a matter of time until they appear on the black market and in the hands of terrorists, dictators wishing to better control their populace, warlords wishing to perpetrate ethnic cleansing, etc. Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group. We therefore believe that a military AI arms race would not be beneficial for humanity. There are many ways in which AI can make battlefields safer for humans, especially civilians, without creating new tools for killing people.

    Just as most chemists and biologists have no interest in building chemical or biological weapons, most AI researchers have no interest in building AI weapons — and do not want others to tarnish their field by doing so, potentially creating a major public backlash against AI that curtails its future societal benefits. Indeed, chemists and biologists have broadly supported international agreements that have successfully prohibited chemical and biological weapons, just as most physicists supported the treaties banning space-based nuclear weapons and blinding laser weapons.

    In summary, we believe that AI has great potential to benefit humanity in many ways, and that the goal of the field should be to do so. Starting a military AI arms race is a bad idea, and should be prevented by a ban on offensive autonomous weapons beyond meaningful human control. Other Endorsers: You need javascript enabled to view the open letter signers. Invalid email address You can unsubscribe at any time. Thanks for subscribing!

    Investment income is then allocated annually to support granting, community leadership and operations. The summary and charts presented here provide both a financial snapshot and a history of recent activity that underlies the grants and community leadership activities represented in this annual report, made possible by remarkable donors.

    Donations Donations to the Foundation are from individuals, corporations and other charities. The five-year rolling average number of donations is 1, with at 1, Chart 1 Grants and community leadership Grants are made annually from both endowed and flowthrough funds. Granting from endowment funds was reduced in as a result of the decline in investment returns in which a lowered the asset base used for the granting calculation currently four percent of the fund balances , and b resulted in less income available to grant.

    Flowthrough granting and expenditures on community leadership projects has ranged from 22 to 56 percent of total granting in any given year and is dependent on the timing and nature of flowthrough and project activity.

    At , the number of grants for this year is 37 percent higher than the eight-year average. Chart 2 Investments Investments traded in active markets are reported at fair market value. Investments not actively traded are recorded at their cost less any impairment of their value. To support our strategy of aligning our assets with our mission and to provide a more diverse and robust portfolio, HCF has committed to investing in alternative asset classes including loans to charities and not-for-profits, private debt, real estate, infrastructure and private equity.

    Since these investments are not actively traded, they are valued at cost in the investments. HCF invests according to policy guidelines established by the Board of Directors. Two committees of the Board oversee investments to ensure compliance with the policy: Public market portfolios are managed by two professional investment firms and are overseen by the Finance and Investment Committee.

    Impact investments are overseen by the Impact Investment Committee, with due diligence and other support from professional consultants. The investment policy sets out a total portfolio target asset mix, as well as a range around these targets. The public market investment managers have mandates within this targeted asset mix and use their discretion to invest the portfolios within this range. Chart 3 reflects the current and target asset mix. Comparing actual results to the benchmark measures the value added by investment managers compared to the average market performance.

    Chart 4 The effect of the global pandemic has materially affected investment returns, resulting in a The seven-year annualized return at 6. In addition, these investments provide a pool uncorrelated to the public markets which, in turn, buffers the portfolio from the volatility currently experienced.

    More than 15 percent of our long-term assets are in impact investments. Impact investments cover areas including affordable housing, arts, environment and sustainable development.

    Chart 6 shows the impact areas our loans have supported. In addition, the interest from these loans supports HCF granting. The first request for proposals for funding in January created enormous interest nationally and garnered 65 submissions to our regional partnership. Approved funding is expected to be released in June Many of these investments are long term in nature, are maintained at cost and do not have a regular income stream. As these investments are maintained at cost, their results include interest income and realized gains, but not unrealized gains.

    Results for these investments are closely monitored and are reported when realized. Charts 8 and 9 illustrate these costs by operating area and by expense type. The nature of donations to the Foundation can result in costs preceding the receipt of the donation by several years for example, donations through wills.

    As a result, consistent with the community foundation sector, operating costs are evaluated by a ratio of total operating expenses to average total assets. Management considers the ratio of 1. We continue to monitor both the actual results and the benchmarks on an ongoing basis. Funds include both endowed and flowthrough funds. Endowed funds are held permanently and grant from investment earnings. Flowthrough funds are fully distributed as grants over a pre-determined term. This results in a modest total funds balance growth of 4.

    The number of funds has grown 19 percent to from in

    They might include, for example, armed quadcopters that can search for and eliminate people meeting certain pre-defined criteria, but do not include cruise missiles or remotely piloted drones for which humans make all targeting decisions. Artificial Intelligence AI technology has reached a point where the deployment of such systems is — practically if not legally — feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.

    Many arguments have been made for and against autonomous weapons, for example that replacing human soldiers by machines is good by reducing casualties for the owner but bad by thereby lowering the threshold for going to battle. The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or to prevent it from starting. If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow.

    Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce. It will only be a matter of time until they appear on the black market and in the hands of terrorists, dictators wishing to better control their populace, warlords wishing to perpetrate ethnic cleansing, etc. Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group.

    We therefore believe that a military AI arms race would not be beneficial for humanity.

    Since these investments are not actively traded, they are valued at cost in the investments. HCF invests according to policy guidelines established by the Board of Directors. Two committees of the Board oversee investments to ensure compliance with the policy: Public market portfolios are managed by two professional investment firms and are overseen by the Finance and Investment Committee.

    Impact investments are overseen by the Impact Investment Committee, with due diligence and other support from professional consultants. The investment policy sets out a total portfolio target asset mix, as well as a range around these targets.

    The public market investment managers have mandates within this targeted asset mix and use their discretion to invest the portfolios within this range. Chart 3 reflects the current and target asset mix. Comparing actual results to the benchmark measures the value added by investment managers compared to the average market performance.

    Our Donors

    Chart 4 The effect of the global pandemic has materially affected investment returns, resulting in a The seven-year annualized return at 6. In addition, these investments provide a pool uncorrelated to the public markets which, in turn, buffers the portfolio from the volatility currently experienced.

    More than 15 percent of our long-term assets are in impact investments. Impact investments cover areas including affordable housing, arts, environment and sustainable development.

    Chart 6 shows the impact areas our loans have supported. In addition, the interest from these loans supports HCF granting. The first request for proposals for funding in January created enormous interest nationally and garnered 65 submissions to our regional partnership.

    Approved funding is expected to be released in June Many of these investments are long term in nature, are maintained at cost and do not have a regular income stream. As these investments are maintained at cost, their results include interest income and realized gains, but not unrealized gains. Results for these investments are closely monitored and are reported when realized.


    thoughts on “Rikki lee fletcher winnipeg

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *