I am convinced that Carrick is an exceptional candidate because of his track record of making big, impactful things happen. Examples: co-founding GovAI and CSET—which are top references in AI governance --, saving potentially thousands of lives by clearing a roadblock to a nationwide vaccination program, and securing a court decision that reallocated over $1 billion to high impact health programs by manually going through over 1,000 pages of accounting documentation.
Also, by all accounts from his friends and colleagues, is very honest and generally a good and kind person.
would have a huge direct impact by being a champion to neglected and very important cause areas, like pandemic preparedness.
would give a lot of information to future candidates interested in preserving future generations
would gain a lot by being in Congress ASAP so that he can build experience and become even more impactful in the next few years. By being an elected official, Carrick enters a new “reference class” that puts him in a better position to have very impactful roles later. I think Carrick has a substantial chance of becoming one day in charge of the US national response to extreme risks, such as a pandemic or a technological disaster. 19 out of 45 US Presidents served in Congress and 5 out of 45 US Presidents went to Yale Law School, as he did. So maybe Carrick would have a 1 in 1000 or 10,000 chance of becoming a US president, and an even higher chance of becoming “simply” extremely influential in US policy.
Have you thought about crossposting this to some local subreddits? I searched for Carrick’s name on reddit and he seems to be very unpopular there. People are tired of his ads and think he’s gonna be a shill for the crypto industry. Maybe could make a post like “Why all of the Flynn ads? An explanation from a campaign volunteer”
Thanks for the suggestion, I’m going to definitely consider that. I’m a bit worried about feeding the troll… Maybe something more focused on why I think he’s really a good candidate, and more detailed?
Maybe these are obvious considerations, but seeing those reddit comments makes me wonder:
At what point does further ad spending become actively counterproductive by provoking people into voting for the competition, or into persuading others to?
Is it worth it for someone like Flynn or Bankman-Fried to communicate directly to the voting public explicitly acknowledging how many ads there are from outside funders, and explaining why that seemed like a legitimate thing to do given what these outside funders felt to be the stakes? (At least I don’t think I’ve seen such communication so far.) That might give people an alternative to the adversarial frame that they might otherwise default to.
I think there is no harm in setting up an alert in case there are more threads about him. The earlier you arrive in a thread, the greater the opportunity to influence the discussion. If people are going to be reading a negative comment anyways, I don’t think there is much harm in replying, at least on reddit—I don’t think reddit tends to generate more views for a thread with more activity, the way twitter can. In fact, replying to the older threads on reddit could be a good way to test out messaging, since almost no one is reading at this point, but you might get replies from people who left negative comments and learn how to change their mind. I’ve had success arguing for minority positions on my local subreddit by being friendly, respectful, and factual.
Beyond that I’m really not sure, creating new threads could be a high-risk/high-reward strategy to use if he’s falling in the polls. Maybe get him to do an AMA?
My local subreddit’s subscriber count is about 20% of the population of the city, and I’ve never seen a political candidate post there, even though there is lots of politics discussion. I think making an AMA saying what you’ve learned from talking to voters, and asking users what issues are most important to them, early in a campaign could be a really powerful strategy (edit: esp. if prearranged w/ subreddit moderators). I don’t know if there is a comparable subreddit for District 6 though, e.g. this subreddit only has about 1% of the city population according to Wikipedia, and it’s mostly pretty pictures right now so they might not like it if you started talking about politics.
Lots of useful insights. At this point, I’m more on the side of doing this, which is not fanning the flames.
″ How should I respond to takes on EA that I disagree with?
Maybe not at all — it may not be worth fanning the flames.
If you do respond, it helps to link to a source for the counter-point you want to make. That way, curious people who see your interaction can follow the source to learn more.”
Why are you volunteering for the campaign?
I’m a volunteer for the campaign because
I am convinced that Carrick is an exceptional candidate because of his track record of making big, impactful things happen. Examples: co-founding GovAI and CSET—which are top references in AI governance --, saving potentially thousands of lives by clearing a roadblock to a nationwide vaccination program, and securing a court decision that reallocated over $1 billion to high impact health programs by manually going through over 1,000 pages of accounting documentation.
Also, by all accounts from his friends and colleagues, is very honest and generally a good and kind person.
would have a huge direct impact by being a champion to neglected and very important cause areas, like pandemic preparedness.
would give a lot of information to future candidates interested in preserving future generations
would gain a lot by being in Congress ASAP so that he can build experience and become even more impactful in the next few years. By being an elected official, Carrick enters a new “reference class” that puts him in a better position to have very impactful roles later. I think Carrick has a substantial chance of becoming one day in charge of the US national response to extreme risks, such as a pandemic or a technological disaster. 19 out of 45 US Presidents served in Congress and 5 out of 45 US Presidents went to Yale Law School, as he did. So maybe Carrick would have a 1 in 1000 or 10,000 chance of becoming a US president, and an even higher chance of becoming “simply” extremely influential in US policy.
Have you thought about crossposting this to some local subreddits? I searched for Carrick’s name on reddit and he seems to be very unpopular there. People are tired of his ads and think he’s gonna be a shill for the crypto industry. Maybe could make a post like “Why all of the Flynn ads? An explanation from a campaign volunteer”
Thanks for the suggestion, I’m going to definitely consider that. I’m a bit worried about feeding the troll… Maybe something more focused on why I think he’s really a good candidate, and more detailed?
Maybe these are obvious considerations, but seeing those reddit comments makes me wonder:
At what point does further ad spending become actively counterproductive by provoking people into voting for the competition, or into persuading others to?
Is it worth it for someone like Flynn or Bankman-Fried to communicate directly to the voting public explicitly acknowledging how many ads there are from outside funders, and explaining why that seemed like a legitimate thing to do given what these outside funders felt to be the stakes? (At least I don’t think I’ve seen such communication so far.) That might give people an alternative to the adversarial frame that they might otherwise default to.
I think there is no harm in setting up an alert in case there are more threads about him. The earlier you arrive in a thread, the greater the opportunity to influence the discussion. If people are going to be reading a negative comment anyways, I don’t think there is much harm in replying, at least on reddit—I don’t think reddit tends to generate more views for a thread with more activity, the way twitter can. In fact, replying to the older threads on reddit could be a good way to test out messaging, since almost no one is reading at this point, but you might get replies from people who left negative comments and learn how to change their mind. I’ve had success arguing for minority positions on my local subreddit by being friendly, respectful, and factual.
Beyond that I’m really not sure, creating new threads could be a high-risk/high-reward strategy to use if he’s falling in the polls. Maybe get him to do an AMA?
My local subreddit’s subscriber count is about 20% of the population of the city, and I’ve never seen a political candidate post there, even though there is lots of politics discussion. I think making an AMA saying what you’ve learned from talking to voters, and asking users what issues are most important to them, early in a campaign could be a really powerful strategy (edit: esp. if prearranged w/ subreddit moderators). I don’t know if there is a comparable subreddit for District 6 though, e.g. this subreddit only has about 1% of the city population according to Wikipedia, and it’s mostly pretty pictures right now so they might not like it if you started talking about politics.
Lots of useful insights. At this point, I’m more on the side of doing this, which is not fanning the flames.
″ How should I respond to takes on EA that I disagree with?
Maybe not at all — it may not be worth fanning the flames.
If you do respond, it helps to link to a source for the counter-point you want to make. That way, curious people who see your interaction can follow the source to learn more.”