It received 507,000 views, and at 27 minutes long, if the average viewer watched 1â3 of it, then thatâs 507,000*27*1/â3=4,563,000 VM.
I donât recall whether the $20,000 Grand Prize it received was enough to reimburse Suzy for her cost to produce it and pay for her time, but if so, thatâd be 4,563,000VM/â$20,000=228 VM/â$.
Not sure how to do the quality adjustment using the OP framework, but naively my intuition is that short films like this one are more effective at changing peoplesâ minds on the importance of the problem per minute than average videos of the AI Safety channels. How valuable it is probably depends mostly on how valuable shifting the opinion of the general public is. Itâs not a video that Iâd expect to create AI safety researchers, but I expect it did help shift the Overton window on AI risk.
Agreed about the need to include Suzy Shepherd and Siliconversations.
Before Marcus messaged me I was in the process of filling another google sheets (link) to measure the impact of content creators (which I sent him) which also had like three key criteria (production value, usefulness of audience, accuracy).
I think Suzy & Siliconversations are great example of effectiveness because:
I think Suzy did her film for really cheap (less than $20k). Probably if you included her time youâd get a larger amount, but in terms of actual $ spent and the impact it got (400k views on longform content) I think itâs pretty great, and I think quite educational. In particular, it providesanother angle to how to explain things, through some original content. In comparison, a lot of the AI 2027 content has been like amplifying an idea that was already in the world and covered by a bunch of people. Not sure how to compare both things but itâs worth noting theyâre different.
Siliconversations is I think an even more powerful example, and one of the reasons why I wanted to make that google sheets. After talking to folks at ControlAI, his videos about emailing representatives lead to many more emails sent to representatives than another Control AI x Rational Animations collaboration, even though RA is a much bigger channel than Siliconversations (and especially at the time Siliconversations first posted his video). The ratio of CTA per views is at least 2.5% given the 2000 emails from 80k views (source).
The thing I wanted to measure (which I think is probably a bit much harder than just estimating things with weights then multiplying by minutes of watchtime) is âwhat kind of content leads more people to take action like Siliconversationsâ, and Iâm not sure how to measure that except if everyone had CTAs that they tracked and we could compare the ratios.
The reason I think Siliconversationsâ video lead to so many emails was that he was actually relentless in this video about sending emails, and that was the entire point of the video, instead of like talking about AI risk in general, and having a link in the comments.
I think this is also why that RA x ControlAI collab got less emails, but it also got way more views that potentially in the future will lead to a bunch of people that will do a lot of useful things in the world, though thatâs hard to measure.
I know that 80kâs AI In Context has a full section at the end on âWhat to doâ saying to look at the links in description. Maybe Chana Mesinger has data on how many people clicked on how much traffic was redirected from YT to 80k.
How would you evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Writing Doom â Award-Winning Short Film on Superintelligence (2024) in this framework?
(More info on the filmâs creation in the FLI interview: Suzy Shepherd on Imagining Superintelligence and âWriting Doomâ)
It received 507,000 views, and at 27 minutes long, if the average viewer watched 1â3 of it, then thatâs 507,000*27*1/â3=4,563,000 VM.
I donât recall whether the $20,000 Grand Prize it received was enough to reimburse Suzy for her cost to produce it and pay for her time, but if so, thatâd be 4,563,000VM/â$20,000=228 VM/â$.
Not sure how to do the quality adjustment using the OP framework, but naively my intuition is that short films like this one are more effective at changing peoplesâ minds on the importance of the problem per minute than average videos of the AI Safety channels. How valuable it is probably depends mostly on how valuable shifting the opinion of the general public is. Itâs not a video that Iâd expect to create AI safety researchers, but I expect it did help shift the Overton window on AI risk.
Happy to include it, Iâll do it now.
Any update?
She sent me numbers. Iâm getting on it
Itâs included now in unweighted. Iâm going to try to do some analytics to just quality adjustments
Correct link: https://ââwww.youtube.com/ââwatch?v=McnNjFgQzyc
Another FLI-funded YouTube channel is https://ââwww.youtube.com/ââ@Siliconversations, which has ~2M views on AI Safety
Agreed about the need to include Suzy Shepherd and Siliconversations.
Before Marcus messaged me I was in the process of filling another google sheets (link) to measure the impact of content creators (which I sent him) which also had like three key criteria (production value, usefulness of audience, accuracy).
I think Suzy & Siliconversations are great example of effectiveness because:
I think Suzy did her film for really cheap (less than $20k). Probably if you included her time youâd get a larger amount, but in terms of actual $ spent and the impact it got (400k views on longform content) I think itâs pretty great, and I think quite educational. In particular, it provides another angle to how to explain things, through some original content. In comparison, a lot of the AI 2027 content has been like amplifying an idea that was already in the world and covered by a bunch of people. Not sure how to compare both things but itâs worth noting theyâre different.
Siliconversations is I think an even more powerful example, and one of the reasons why I wanted to make that google sheets. After talking to folks at ControlAI, his videos about emailing representatives lead to many more emails sent to representatives than another Control AI x Rational Animations collaboration, even though RA is a much bigger channel than Siliconversations (and especially at the time Siliconversations first posted his video). The ratio of CTA per views is at least 2.5% given the 2000 emails from 80k views (source).
The thing I wanted to measure (which I think is probably a bit much harder than just estimating things with weights then multiplying by minutes of watchtime) is âwhat kind of content leads more people to take action like Siliconversationsâ, and Iâm not sure how to measure that except if everyone had CTAs that they tracked and we could compare the ratios.
The reason I think Siliconversationsâ video lead to so many emails was that he was actually relentless in this video about sending emails, and that was the entire point of the video, instead of like talking about AI risk in general, and having a link in the comments.
I think this is also why that RA x ControlAI collab got less emails, but it also got way more views that potentially in the future will lead to a bunch of people that will do a lot of useful things in the world, though thatâs hard to measure.
I know that 80kâs AI In Context has a full section at the end on âWhat to doâ saying to look at the links in description. Maybe Chana Mesinger has data on how many people clicked on how much traffic was redirected from YT to 80k.