I think there are a bunch of potential reasons the Bulletin doesn’t appear much in EA discussions:
-It’s a media/magazine/news organization so it mostly publishes articles on current events, which EAs tend not to focus on. [ETA: As cwgoes mentions, the journal has a longer time horizon but is still more focused on currentish stuff than most EAs. More like a policy journal than an academic one.]
-While it does have some content on biorisk and AI, the two potential x-risks EAs tend to focus on, it’s still quite focused on nukes.
-EA can be a bit insular and a lot of EAs know a lot more about GCR-relevant orgs with some connection to EA than those without.
I’ve read some useful stuff in the Bulletin as well as some stuff I really disagree with. I definitely don’t think there’s anything *wrong* with it.
Greg Lewis, an EA who works on biorisk at FHI, published an article I really like in the Bulletin called “Horsepox synthesis: A case of the unilateralist’s curse?” Here’s a post on their critique of Open Phil’s biorisk program.
I think there are a bunch of potential reasons the Bulletin doesn’t appear much in EA discussions:
-It’s a media/magazine/news organization so it mostly publishes articles on current events, which EAs tend not to focus on. [ETA: As cwgoes mentions, the journal has a longer time horizon but is still more focused on currentish stuff than most EAs. More like a policy journal than an academic one.]
-While it does have some content on biorisk and AI, the two potential x-risks EAs tend to focus on, it’s still quite focused on nukes.
-EA can be a bit insular and a lot of EAs know a lot more about GCR-relevant orgs with some connection to EA than those without.
Didn’t know Greg was publishing there. Thanks for the comment, perhaps that’s the answer!
Here, I think you dropped this: ]
Wat?
I think that the HowieL did not close the square bracket (but then edited so that it now looks fine).
Here, I think you dropped this: )
Thanks!