I think this is a great idea! Is there a way to have two versions:
The detailed version (with %’s, etc)
And the meme-able version (which links to the detailed version)
Content like this is only as good as the number of people that see it, and while its detail would necessarily be reduced in the meme-able version, I think it is still worth doing.
Yep. But in addition to being simpler, the version of this project optimized for getting attention has other differences:
Criteria are better justified, more widely agreeable, and less focused on x-risk
It’s done—or at least endorsed and promoted—by a credible org
The scoring is done by legible experts and ideally according to a specific process
Even if I could do this, it would be effortful and costly and imperfect and there would be tradeoffs. I expect someone else will soon fill this niche pretty well.
Hi Zach! To clarify, are you basically saying you don’t want to improve the project much more than where you’ve got it to? I think it is possible you’ve tripped over a highly impactful thing here!
There are opportunity costs and other tradeoffs involved in making the project better along public-attention dimensions.
The current version is bad at getting public attention; improving it and making it get 1000x public attention would still leave it with little; likely it’s better to wait for a different project that’s better positioned and more focused on getting public attention. And as I said, I expect such a project to appear soon.
“And as I said, I expect such a project to appear soon.”
I dont know whether to read this as “Zach has some inside information that gives him high confidence it will exist” or “Zach is doing wishful thinking” or something else!
What do you consider the purpose or theory of change of this project? I assumed it was to put pressure on the AI labs to improve along these criteria, which presumably requires some level of public attention. Do you see it more as a way for AI safety people to keep tabs on the status of these labs?
The original goal involved getting attention. Weeks ago, I realized I was not on track to get attention. I launched without a sharp object-level goal but largely to get feedback to figure out whether to continue working on this project and what goals it should have.
I think getting attention would increase the impact of this project a lot and is probably pretty doable if you are able to find an institutional home for it. I agree with Yanni’s sentiment that it is probably better to improve on this project than to wait for another one that is more optimized for public attention to come along (though am curious why you think the latter is better).
I think this is a great idea! Is there a way to have two versions:
The detailed version (with %’s, etc)
And the meme-able version (which links to the detailed version)
Content like this is only as good as the number of people that see it, and while its detail would necessarily be reduced in the meme-able version, I think it is still worth doing.
The Alliance for Animals does this in the lead up to elections and it gets spread widely: https://www.allianceforanimals.org.au/nsw-election-2023
Yep. But in addition to being simpler, the version of this project optimized for getting attention has other differences:
Criteria are better justified, more widely agreeable, and less focused on x-risk
It’s done—or at least endorsed and promoted—by a credible org
The scoring is done by legible experts and ideally according to a specific process
Even if I could do this, it would be effortful and costly and imperfect and there would be tradeoffs. I expect someone else will soon fill this niche pretty well.
Hi Zach! To clarify, are you basically saying you don’t want to improve the project much more than where you’ve got it to? I think it is possible you’ve tripped over a highly impactful thing here!
Not necessarily. But:
There are opportunity costs and other tradeoffs involved in making the project better along public-attention dimensions.
The current version is bad at getting public attention; improving it and making it get 1000x public attention would still leave it with little; likely it’s better to wait for a different project that’s better positioned and more focused on getting public attention. And as I said, I expect such a project to appear soon.
“And as I said, I expect such a project to appear soon.”
I dont know whether to read this as “Zach has some inside information that gives him high confidence it will exist” or “Zach is doing wishful thinking” or something else!
What do you consider the purpose or theory of change of this project? I assumed it was to put pressure on the AI labs to improve along these criteria, which presumably requires some level of public attention. Do you see it more as a way for AI safety people to keep tabs on the status of these labs?
The original goal involved getting attention. Weeks ago, I realized I was not on track to get attention. I launched without a sharp object-level goal but largely to get feedback to figure out whether to continue working on this project and what goals it should have.
I think getting attention would increase the impact of this project a lot and is probably pretty doable if you are able to find an institutional home for it. I agree with Yanni’s sentiment that it is probably better to improve on this project than to wait for another one that is more optimized for public attention to come along (though am curious why you think the latter is better).