(Disclosure: Charlie significantly helped restart EA at Penn, which I currently lead, so I may be biased toward agreeing with him.)
Iâve been watching and liking your stuff for a while, and I think the videos are great. You could benefit from an editor who extracts more clips from your interviews (though youâre already doing this quite well!). My (limited) understanding is that social media is a consistency and frequency game, and you seem to be hitting the nail on the head with both. I particularly like how you engage with commenters in good faith, as you do in the street interviews.
Iâve sent your stuff to a couple of friends when theyâve said something along the lines of, âNormal, everyday people donât know whatâs happening and donât get to weigh in on the transformation AI will bring,â because your work is the number-one example that comes to mind whenever someone says that. I think you should keep it up!
I agree with 1; I got the same impression from speaking with <100 Manhattan residents while street canvassing for Alex Bores. But Manhattan residents seemed more informed than the people in your interviews (prob. because theyâre more educated /â wealthier /â more politically active).
I agree with 2, especially this:
To summarize, the arguments for more transparency, safety, or regulation are actually quite Overpowered to the average person conditional on having ~soonish timelines and actually being prompted to think about 10 years from now.
I think that even without explicitly considering timelines, âtransparency/âsafety/âregulation around corporations building black boxes that might replace jobsâ is very easy for the average person to support.
I partially agree with 3. Iâve heard everyday people mention fears about job loss a lot. Loss of meaning, less so, though thatâs probably because I didnât discuss it as much and because most of my convos were <10 minutes (too short to reach deep topics).
I think human extinction is believable but people donât actually believe it yet (i.e. they havenât thought about it enough to have a belief). I asked many everyday people about their concerns regarding AI, and they never mentioned extinction, but I also never directly raised the possibility.
On 4, I donât think the comparison between the âEA communityâ and Torchbearer is fair. Torchbearer is specifically focused on supporting advocacy, while the EA community is very broad. I suspect your quick take didnât break containment because it didnât reach the right people.
Also, consider cross-posting this to LW; I think it might get more traction.
Responding to point 4, I think your response is extremely fair and basically correct, itâs a bit unfair for me to criticize EA for not being something that it obviously isnât. But I think my response to that is very relevant to you, which is that you should be thinking about what you want EA to be. Should EA be a library, that doesnât weigh in or put itâs resources behind specific interventions? Or on the other end, it could be extremely âactiveâ. I think right now itâs somewhere in the middle, which isnât necc bad but always confusing to me. Like you could say âlook EA isnât going to get political thatâs out of scopeâ but isnât choosing who speaks at EAG political? isnât giving resources for fellowships that are at minimum utilitarian adjacent political? Why is the line teaching people applied utilitarianism and not directly being an activist organization?
Not saying it should be one or the other but hope people keep thinking about this stuff.
I think Iâd want EA to be more active but not as one centralized entity (CEA or else). I personally think EA is too apolitical; I agree that who gets to speak, what gets funded, etc. are already semi-political choices. I also dislike the Forum removing political posts from the Frontpage (LW doesnât).
I sometimes envy the AIS community for how active they are lol. The coordination/âactivity around the pause movement, in particular, is unlike anything Iâve seen within EA.
(Disclosure: Charlie significantly helped restart EA at Penn, which I currently lead, so I may be biased toward agreeing with him.)
Iâve been watching and liking your stuff for a while, and I think the videos are great. You could benefit from an editor who extracts more clips from your interviews (though youâre already doing this quite well!). My (limited) understanding is that social media is a consistency and frequency game, and you seem to be hitting the nail on the head with both. I particularly like how you engage with commenters in good faith, as you do in the street interviews.
Iâve sent your stuff to a couple of friends when theyâve said something along the lines of, âNormal, everyday people donât know whatâs happening and donât get to weigh in on the transformation AI will bring,â because your work is the number-one example that comes to mind whenever someone says that. I think you should keep it up!
I agree with 1; I got the same impression from speaking with <100 Manhattan residents while street canvassing for Alex Bores. But Manhattan residents seemed more informed than the people in your interviews (prob. because theyâre more educated /â wealthier /â more politically active).
I agree with 2, especially this:
I think that even without explicitly considering timelines, âtransparency/âsafety/âregulation around corporations building black boxes that might replace jobsâ is very easy for the average person to support.
I partially agree with 3. Iâve heard everyday people mention fears about job loss a lot. Loss of meaning, less so, though thatâs probably because I didnât discuss it as much and because most of my convos were <10 minutes (too short to reach deep topics).
I think human extinction is believable but people donât actually believe it yet (i.e. they havenât thought about it enough to have a belief). I asked many everyday people about their concerns regarding AI, and they never mentioned extinction, but I also never directly raised the possibility.
On 4, I donât think the comparison between the âEA communityâ and Torchbearer is fair. Torchbearer is specifically focused on supporting advocacy, while the EA community is very broad. I suspect your quick take didnât break containment because it didnât reach the right people.
Also, consider cross-posting this to LW; I think it might get more traction.
Thanks for the kind words!
Responding to point 4, I think your response is extremely fair and basically correct, itâs a bit unfair for me to criticize EA for not being something that it obviously isnât. But I think my response to that is very relevant to you, which is that you should be thinking about what you want EA to be. Should EA be a library, that doesnât weigh in or put itâs resources behind specific interventions? Or on the other end, it could be extremely âactiveâ. I think right now itâs somewhere in the middle, which isnât necc bad but always confusing to me. Like you could say âlook EA isnât going to get political thatâs out of scopeâ but isnât choosing who speaks at EAG political? isnât giving resources for fellowships that are at minimum utilitarian adjacent political? Why is the line teaching people applied utilitarianism and not directly being an activist organization?
Not saying it should be one or the other but hope people keep thinking about this stuff.
Sorry for the late response, got busy :/â
I think Iâd want EA to be more active but not as one centralized entity (CEA or else). I personally think EA is too apolitical; I agree that who gets to speak, what gets funded, etc. are already semi-political choices. I also dislike the Forum removing political posts from the Frontpage (LW doesnât).
I sometimes envy the AIS community for how active they are lol. The coordination/âactivity around the pause movement, in particular, is unlike anything Iâve seen within EA.