Thanks this is helpful!
Just a heads up my latest estimate is here in footnote 15: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism#fn-15
I went for 300 technical researchers though say the estimate seems more likely to be too high than too low, so seems like we’re pretty close.
(My old Twitter thread was off the top of head, and missing the last year of growth.)
Glad to see more thorough work on this question :)
AI Watch attempted a headcount of AI Safety researchers, which found 160 notable researchers who have worked on AI Safety.
Where did you find the “160 notable researchers” part?
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Thanks this is helpful!
Just a heads up my latest estimate is here in footnote 15: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism#fn-15
I went for 300 technical researchers though say the estimate seems more likely to be too high than too low, so seems like we’re pretty close.
(My old Twitter thread was off the top of head, and missing the last year of growth.)
Glad to see more thorough work on this question :)
Where did you find the “160 notable researchers” part?