I agree with you that thinking about incentives is important, but if you accept the premise that we’re not constrained by capital, then competent founders who have important problems they want to solve can just get funding from AI safety funders rather than wait for the market to supply the needed capital. I do think the selfish economic incentive is different: if you run a nonprofit, you probably won’t earn as much money as if you’re running a well-valued startup, even if both have raised the same amount of funding.
Right now, AI safety is playing a bit of both strategies: supporting nonprofits via mainstream funders like CG, SFF, etc, and supporting for-profits via initiatives like Halcyon Futures or SAIF. I think we probably need both, since we want to diversify our bets and eat the low-hanging fruit on each side.
This is all to say, I’m not sure if the lever we need to be pulling at the margin is market-shaping. I think the best lever is still probably talent.
if you accept the premise that we’re not constrained by capital, then competent founders who have important problems they want to solve can just get funding from AI safety funders rather than wait for the market to supply the needed capital
Tailwinds from the market help snowball your impact, but certainly aren’t necessary.
This is all to say, I’m not sure if the lever we need to be pulling at the margin is market-shaping. I think the best lever is still probably talent.
I don’t believe these things are mutually exclusive. The strongest founders/operators I know want to move the needle in a specific market, and if you want those folks, then it helps to frame the conversation around the problems they’re already attacking.
I don’t believe these things are mutually exclusive. The strongest founders/operators I know want to move the needle in a specific market, and if you want those folks, then it helps to frame the conversation around the problems they’re already attacking.
Yeah, this makes sense. I agree that this is another intervention we should consider doing in parallel.
(Again, speaking for myself, not the co-authors)
I agree with you that thinking about incentives is important, but if you accept the premise that we’re not constrained by capital, then competent founders who have important problems they want to solve can just get funding from AI safety funders rather than wait for the market to supply the needed capital. I do think the selfish economic incentive is different: if you run a nonprofit, you probably won’t earn as much money as if you’re running a well-valued startup, even if both have raised the same amount of funding.
Right now, AI safety is playing a bit of both strategies: supporting nonprofits via mainstream funders like CG, SFF, etc, and supporting for-profits via initiatives like Halcyon Futures or SAIF. I think we probably need both, since we want to diversify our bets and eat the low-hanging fruit on each side.
This is all to say, I’m not sure if the lever we need to be pulling at the margin is market-shaping. I think the best lever is still probably talent.
if you accept the premise that we’re not constrained by capital, then competent founders who have important problems they want to solve can just get funding from AI safety funders rather than wait for the market to supply the needed capital
Tailwinds from the market help snowball your impact, but certainly aren’t necessary.
This is all to say, I’m not sure if the lever we need to be pulling at the margin is market-shaping. I think the best lever is still probably talent.
I don’t believe these things are mutually exclusive. The strongest founders/operators I know want to move the needle in a specific market, and if you want those folks, then it helps to frame the conversation around the problems they’re already attacking.
Yeah, this makes sense. I agree that this is another intervention we should consider doing in parallel.
Btw, happy to see more YC founders around :)
Lucas! How r u??