I find the idea of selecting ‘fellows’ amongst the students who get perks as a way of fostering elitism disquieting orthogonal to the difficulties I suggest above for ‘picking winners’, and I believe I have significantly greater tolerance for elitism than most. I expect significant downsides with resentment of the majority to be judged as relatively ‘un-elite’ (good luck getting them to attend your next event!), a lot of unpleasantness attendant to whatever procedure is used for selection (who decides, and how?), and it looking absurd with the power dynamic generally applicable to most universities: most student groups start off small and desperate for both committee members and attendees to their events so as not to offend the speakers they enlist. It sounds like you have cleared this bump at Princeton, but it may not prove so easy somewhere else.
I fear the strategy implied puts the cart before the horse: you don’t get to ‘be elite’ by just offering codified means of differential status, but rather by that status forming a gatekeeper to unique opportunities and experiences which the audience cannot get elsewhere. The only group at my university which could plausibly reach this bar is the Cambridge Union, which is hundreds of years old, has (by student society standards) an absolutely vast budget and infrastructure, and a reputation that extends beyond the university itself. Getting to even a fraction of this, even segmented for tech, requires building considerable reputational resources, which I expect will take a while even if things go well.
5) Extremely optimistic targets
Less important, but although the metrics appear reasonably well chosen, the targets are stratospheric. Getting 10% of princeton 2016s to apply surely won’t happen (do any other groups on campus get this level of interest?), getting 10% of another university to sign up would be flabberghasting—if application means any more than ‘join the mailing list’, I don’t think any group outside the Union gets that in Cambridge, for example. Getting 50% of the alumni to be leaders (however defined) looks impossible: beating the base rate by a OR > 1.5 would be extraordinary. Ditto changing 70% of your audiences minds with a talk, and ditto almost everything else. I know setting aggressive goals fits the gung-ho start-up ethos, but this can become meaningless if they have no prospect of success—which I believe the balance of these are (prove me wrong on this and I will start offering you money).
6) Over and under-segmentation
You are explicit in aiming to be an ‘EA-liminal’ org, attempting to avoid some of the negative connotations of the label. I agree this is probably wise (although note regret en passant that the EA brand is somewhat toxic) but I am unsure there is a sufficient niche to carve out the worldwide org you have in mind. There are usually groups that cater for ‘interested in science and technology’ group, which have generally been around for a while and thus usually have more clout. The ‘implications and existential threat of emerging technologies’ is pretty solidly in the EA ambit.
This poses a problem where there is an existing ecosystem of both groups where you are trying to enter. Cambridge has SciSoc, the triple helix (looking at science at society), biosoc, chemsoc, comsoc, a couple of student think tanks, a GWWC chapter, an 80k chapter, and a nascent x-risk group—and I am sure some further groups that escaped my knowledge. There seems an area around Envision’s remit which isn’t at least covered once, and I doubt other target unis will be much less saturated here. My guess would be adding another group with a narrowly tailored (but overlapping) focus will likely be more of a detriment in terms of dividing efforts than a dividend. EA (or EA-related) groups trying to set up chapters at universities are also pretty saturated (I count GWWC, EA groups simpliciter, SHIC, 80k. Perhaps others?)
7) Summing up
My overall view is, with qualifications, negative. The outside view on initiatives to produce a hyper-successful university org that wins significant outside prestiege and access to extra-university elites (i.e. entrepreneurs, tech companies, et c.) and then repeats the same process multiple times across elite universities is that the vast majority fail in their ambition. The plan seems to be over-optimistic in setting targets, and relies on success in several highly competitive areas (e.g. predicting elite leaders, tempting them invest their time and attention in you, ensuring momentum and resilence for the org to persist for years, getting a nucleus of highly effective leaders to start parallel groups other universities). For each of these, there is neither a clear edge in principle (and often the outside view will favour competitors with more people, more experience, more cash, more insitutional capital, etc.) nor—with no desire to ‘do down’ the considerable achievement of getting to a mid-sized student org in 6 months or arranging a conference—a sufficiently impressive track record to anticipate such the requisite (very substantial) degree of success going forward.
My hunch is there remains considerable overlap between Envision and what various EA groups are already trying to accomplish. My suggestion would be a better means of accomplishing what Envision has in mind by trying to penetrate elite student audiences with EA-esque messages about Tech whilst avoiding the brand baggage of EA is to instead work within the existing ecosystem to deliver progress in that direction, both leveraging existing resources and capital, and developing the right sort of loose collaborations. An example:
The Wiberforce Society is a student run think tank in Cambridge. It ran a day of panel discussions on the impacts of future technology, and had one planned on ‘navigating AI in the 21st century’. I signed up to help produce the paper draft, with a mix of people—some were EA-xrisky types, but not all. The panelists who would discuss our paper included a mix of people from Xrisk orgs, academia, and industry. There have been several attractive dividends: some of the coauthors have gone on to tech start-ups and discussing publically the implications of (e.g.) drone technologies, others have been invited to attend conferences, and so on and so forth. It seems very challenging for an org started in Cambridge to have emerged similarly successfully.
8) Warm wishes
I hope this persuades you to change course. Obviously, if you decide to continue along the lines suggested in the above strategy, I wish Envision every possible success, and sincerely hope my concern proves misplaced. I am fairly good at stats (although you might have access to professorial statistical firepower) and I am happy to advise re. predictive modelling etc. if you don’t already have much better people on board. :)
Thank you, Gregory. You raise excellent points. I will address them individually and then alltogether in conclusion.
1) That’s correct, we will have to compete with other student groups. So far, our message appears powerful enough to give us a significant advantage, which will help partially compensate for our lack of a track record.
We also don’t necessarily have to compete. The strategy of partnering with other successful student groups (ie Entrepreneurship Club at Princeton; similar organizations at a handful of universities have expressed excitement at partnering with us and helping set up a chapter, although of course excitement does not necessarily equal actual work) appears to be sufficient to allow us to compete at a level that we’re able to grow and sustain. Envision is in many ways a welcome addition to entrepreneurship groups so they’ve been very receptive so far to partnering and sharing resources.
2) Excellent point. To counter this, we’re focusing on building up an ecosystem of faculty advisors and partner organizations, which adds both prestige in the competition for student leaders and significantly increases the likelihood of sustainability.
I also think you underestimate the appeal of helping build a new organization, especially one working on something exciting, even if you don’t run it. However, I could be wrong on this.
Lack of investment by later leaders is certainly a problem. However, 1) investment is less important since the organization already exists so far less work is required, 2) continued involvement by a board of alumni will help keep the organization on track, and 3) with faculty advisor buy-in some of the continuity will stem from them. With this combination, a weak leader should not cause the organization to collapse.
3) A good point, and one we had not thought of in detail. A few thoughts: 1) we could just use external validation criteria, eg internships at the most competitive companies, although this is not necessarily indicative of future domain leadership. 2) Breadth is a strong solution to this; the more people we reach in absolute terms, the higher the likelihood we touch future leaders.
In light of your point, do you think it’s worth creating a predictive model at all? It would use up valuable man-power, and you’ve convinced me it would likely have limited impact.
4) This is a good point. Although it seems like having fellows could actually increase attendance at events. In any case, you’ve convinced me to defer a fellow program until at least after the conference before re-considering in light of the new evidence we’ll have gathered.
5) I disagree that the targets are ‘stratospheric’ – although they are optimistic. I also don’t see the problem with the ‘gung-ho start-up ethos’ – it gets quite a lot done. The targets are hard to achieve, and it’s very unlikely we’ll hit all of them, but we’ll try and get pretty far in the process. Failing at achieving optimistic targets but getting quite far towards them in striving is much preferable to achieving unambitious ones and sitting back in satisfaction.
Having made that philosophical objection, I do agree our targets are in some cases probably unrealistic. I’d welcome a more detailed explanation of which ones you think are unrealistic and why, as well as suggestions for more reasonable targets.
6) From my perspective, Envision fills a clear and gaping niche. ‘Interested in science and technology’ is different from ‘interested in the medium-term and long-term future of science and technology and what we can do to pioneer a better future with the tools we have and will have available.’ The differences: more action-oriented; focused on future issues that do not receive much attention on college campuses; more broadly focused on multiple technologies and how they interact; integrating technology and science with ethics, policy, and entrepreneurship.
To use reductio ad absurdum on your argument of there existing separate groups that each touch on an aspect of Envision: there have always been groups for altruistic people and groups for effective people. That does not mean a group for effectively altruistic people can add no value.
I also don’t see much overlap with EA groups – most of our members are not EA, even though many have heard of it. Keep in mind we’re targeting future leaders, in particular those who do not yet have a concern for safety or awareness of the future of technology, to help them learn about it.
A final note – I think you overestimate how many similar student groups exist. We’ve now exhaustively gone through all student organizations at over a dozen universities, and have not yet come across an organization with significant overlap that is run well to the point of making Envision unnecessary. Cambridge is among those with the most potential candidates (although we’ve also had the most interest from students there, in addition to MIT, about starting a chapter).
Finally, as a thought experiment – how many student organizations contain entrepreneurs and policy-makers not in the EA sphere and have Andrew Critch and Robin Hanson as speakers?
Summing up
There is a lot to be said here. First, to break down your second sentence:
• Hyper-successful: I’m not entirely sure what this means, but I don’t see how Envision succeeding at its goals requires it. We certainly need success as a student group, but I don’t think we need substantially more than what would traditionally qualify as success for a student group, albeit repeated several times (which is certainly harder).
• Significant outside prestige: We need prestige among students, but I don’t see why outside prestige is necessary (if I’m interpreting this correctly). It helps with getting external organizations on board, but prestige is sufficient for this, not necessary – being students excited about the future of tech and an organization with the prospect of hiring opportunities, and in the EA sphere being a student organization with the goal of promoting safety, goes a long way.
• Access to extra-university elites: This is true, but we only need very limited access. Ie a few hours on a weekend to come speak or showcase your technology at a conference that pays for your flight, setting up a recruitment booth in return for providing a (for a company) small amount of money, having your name on a student organization and occasionally speaking to excited students, etc. We’ve so far been pretty successful at getting this since it’s low-cost. To be successful, we don’t need more than this – the more the better, but the acceptable threshold of access to ensure success is quite low.
In light of this, looking at some other student groups, I think the amount that fail is less than the vast majority, especially when keeping in mind we’re partnering with organizations like Entrepreneurship Club that have already been successful on most relevant metrics and can advise us, lend us their credibility, and help us with recruiting.
On repeating the same process: Here I agree with you. This is certainly one of the most difficult parts of Envision’s strategy. Even if our success is limited to Princeton, though (and I have high confidence we’ll establish at least a few additional chapters at significant universities), I think the net impact is still sufficient to justify building Envision.
With regards to your second sentence:
• Predicting elite leaders – I agree this is difficult, but as I explained in the point about this, not necessary to success. Casting a wide net at universities most likely to produce future leaders ensures high probability of impacting the correct people. Predicting future leaders would be hugely beneficial, but failure here does not invalidate the value proposition.
• Tempting them to invest their time and attention in you – They need only attend a few events and change their minds. We need officers, but this is only a tiny subset, and I think there’s sufficient message attraction to fill this. Getting people to attend events is not trivial, but certainly doable, and has been done before, including by us.
• Ensuring momentum and resilience – I agree that this is a major challenge. However, as I outlined above in the relevant point, I think building a framework will make this significantly easier.
• Getting a nucleus of highly effective leaders to start parallel groups at other universities – I completely agree that this is extremely difficult and highly competitive. But in my experience the draw of starting a new organization, even as a chapter, is quite high. And again, I think the message is powerful and will in itself attract several such highly effective leaders.
For reasons I have already elaborated, I disagree that we have no edge in principle (interpreting this as a synonym for message – correct me if I’m wrong).
Track record – I agree we don’t yet have this, but neither did any organization (especially student organization) upon founding. And the partnership with existing student organizations quite significantly mitigates this.
On your last paragraph about other means of accomplishing what Envision has in mind:
• I agree on the importance of using existing ecosystems, and I think Envision is doing what you describe. Ie Entrepreneurship Club, a conference, being a student group, running a pitch competition, leveraging existing opinions and resources rather than producing our own. I would argue what Envision is doing is leveraging the existing ecosystem more than a student think-tank producing papers would be.
• The work of the Wilberforce Society is admirable, and we will certainly seek collaboration with them given this information about their concern for AI and the future of technology. But it doesn’t seem like the type of organization to attract entrepreneurs, future business leaders, and hardcore tech developers (I could be wrong about this). And signing up to write a paper about AI suggests a pre-established interest. Running such a panel is also high-effort, and it seems like it affected a handful of people.
Again, not to say anything negative about Wilberforce Society at all – just to make the point that I don’t think this is necessarily far more effective than Envision. I think they serve different goals and should both exist.
Conclusion
First of all, thank you so much again for taking the time to write out this post. You’ve convinced me of a fair amount of significant changes to our plan, and helped better clarify others.
However, you have not persuaded me to change course. I think I’ve argued quite convincingly why Envision adds value – and I welcome any additional arguments for why it does not, or disagreements with my points. For the sake of keeping this at a readable length I skimmed over some points and left the details to inference, so also feel free to ask for clarification.
Thank you for the model-building offer. Depending on whether you think the model is still worth it, we would be interested in discussing further.
As a final note, Envision is exciting. And excitement is powerful.
[Continued]
4) On the perils of obnoxious elitism
I find the idea of selecting ‘fellows’ amongst the students who get perks as a way of fostering elitism disquieting orthogonal to the difficulties I suggest above for ‘picking winners’, and I believe I have significantly greater tolerance for elitism than most. I expect significant downsides with resentment of the majority to be judged as relatively ‘un-elite’ (good luck getting them to attend your next event!), a lot of unpleasantness attendant to whatever procedure is used for selection (who decides, and how?), and it looking absurd with the power dynamic generally applicable to most universities: most student groups start off small and desperate for both committee members and attendees to their events so as not to offend the speakers they enlist. It sounds like you have cleared this bump at Princeton, but it may not prove so easy somewhere else.
I fear the strategy implied puts the cart before the horse: you don’t get to ‘be elite’ by just offering codified means of differential status, but rather by that status forming a gatekeeper to unique opportunities and experiences which the audience cannot get elsewhere. The only group at my university which could plausibly reach this bar is the Cambridge Union, which is hundreds of years old, has (by student society standards) an absolutely vast budget and infrastructure, and a reputation that extends beyond the university itself. Getting to even a fraction of this, even segmented for tech, requires building considerable reputational resources, which I expect will take a while even if things go well.
5) Extremely optimistic targets
Less important, but although the metrics appear reasonably well chosen, the targets are stratospheric. Getting 10% of princeton 2016s to apply surely won’t happen (do any other groups on campus get this level of interest?), getting 10% of another university to sign up would be flabberghasting—if application means any more than ‘join the mailing list’, I don’t think any group outside the Union gets that in Cambridge, for example. Getting 50% of the alumni to be leaders (however defined) looks impossible: beating the base rate by a OR > 1.5 would be extraordinary. Ditto changing 70% of your audiences minds with a talk, and ditto almost everything else. I know setting aggressive goals fits the gung-ho start-up ethos, but this can become meaningless if they have no prospect of success—which I believe the balance of these are (prove me wrong on this and I will start offering you money).
6) Over and under-segmentation
You are explicit in aiming to be an ‘EA-liminal’ org, attempting to avoid some of the negative connotations of the label. I agree this is probably wise (although note regret en passant that the EA brand is somewhat toxic) but I am unsure there is a sufficient niche to carve out the worldwide org you have in mind. There are usually groups that cater for ‘interested in science and technology’ group, which have generally been around for a while and thus usually have more clout. The ‘implications and existential threat of emerging technologies’ is pretty solidly in the EA ambit.
This poses a problem where there is an existing ecosystem of both groups where you are trying to enter. Cambridge has SciSoc, the triple helix (looking at science at society), biosoc, chemsoc, comsoc, a couple of student think tanks, a GWWC chapter, an 80k chapter, and a nascent x-risk group—and I am sure some further groups that escaped my knowledge. There seems an area around Envision’s remit which isn’t at least covered once, and I doubt other target unis will be much less saturated here. My guess would be adding another group with a narrowly tailored (but overlapping) focus will likely be more of a detriment in terms of dividing efforts than a dividend. EA (or EA-related) groups trying to set up chapters at universities are also pretty saturated (I count GWWC, EA groups simpliciter, SHIC, 80k. Perhaps others?)
7) Summing up
My overall view is, with qualifications, negative. The outside view on initiatives to produce a hyper-successful university org that wins significant outside prestiege and access to extra-university elites (i.e. entrepreneurs, tech companies, et c.) and then repeats the same process multiple times across elite universities is that the vast majority fail in their ambition. The plan seems to be over-optimistic in setting targets, and relies on success in several highly competitive areas (e.g. predicting elite leaders, tempting them invest their time and attention in you, ensuring momentum and resilence for the org to persist for years, getting a nucleus of highly effective leaders to start parallel groups other universities). For each of these, there is neither a clear edge in principle (and often the outside view will favour competitors with more people, more experience, more cash, more insitutional capital, etc.) nor—with no desire to ‘do down’ the considerable achievement of getting to a mid-sized student org in 6 months or arranging a conference—a sufficiently impressive track record to anticipate such the requisite (very substantial) degree of success going forward.
My hunch is there remains considerable overlap between Envision and what various EA groups are already trying to accomplish. My suggestion would be a better means of accomplishing what Envision has in mind by trying to penetrate elite student audiences with EA-esque messages about Tech whilst avoiding the brand baggage of EA is to instead work within the existing ecosystem to deliver progress in that direction, both leveraging existing resources and capital, and developing the right sort of loose collaborations. An example:
The Wiberforce Society is a student run think tank in Cambridge. It ran a day of panel discussions on the impacts of future technology, and had one planned on ‘navigating AI in the 21st century’. I signed up to help produce the paper draft, with a mix of people—some were EA-xrisky types, but not all. The panelists who would discuss our paper included a mix of people from Xrisk orgs, academia, and industry. There have been several attractive dividends: some of the coauthors have gone on to tech start-ups and discussing publically the implications of (e.g.) drone technologies, others have been invited to attend conferences, and so on and so forth. It seems very challenging for an org started in Cambridge to have emerged similarly successfully.
8) Warm wishes
I hope this persuades you to change course. Obviously, if you decide to continue along the lines suggested in the above strategy, I wish Envision every possible success, and sincerely hope my concern proves misplaced. I am fairly good at stats (although you might have access to professorial statistical firepower) and I am happy to advise re. predictive modelling etc. if you don’t already have much better people on board. :)
Thank you, Gregory. You raise excellent points. I will address them individually and then alltogether in conclusion.
1) That’s correct, we will have to compete with other student groups. So far, our message appears powerful enough to give us a significant advantage, which will help partially compensate for our lack of a track record.
We also don’t necessarily have to compete. The strategy of partnering with other successful student groups (ie Entrepreneurship Club at Princeton; similar organizations at a handful of universities have expressed excitement at partnering with us and helping set up a chapter, although of course excitement does not necessarily equal actual work) appears to be sufficient to allow us to compete at a level that we’re able to grow and sustain. Envision is in many ways a welcome addition to entrepreneurship groups so they’ve been very receptive so far to partnering and sharing resources.
2) Excellent point. To counter this, we’re focusing on building up an ecosystem of faculty advisors and partner organizations, which adds both prestige in the competition for student leaders and significantly increases the likelihood of sustainability.
I also think you underestimate the appeal of helping build a new organization, especially one working on something exciting, even if you don’t run it. However, I could be wrong on this.
Lack of investment by later leaders is certainly a problem. However, 1) investment is less important since the organization already exists so far less work is required, 2) continued involvement by a board of alumni will help keep the organization on track, and 3) with faculty advisor buy-in some of the continuity will stem from them. With this combination, a weak leader should not cause the organization to collapse.
3) A good point, and one we had not thought of in detail. A few thoughts: 1) we could just use external validation criteria, eg internships at the most competitive companies, although this is not necessarily indicative of future domain leadership. 2) Breadth is a strong solution to this; the more people we reach in absolute terms, the higher the likelihood we touch future leaders.
In light of your point, do you think it’s worth creating a predictive model at all? It would use up valuable man-power, and you’ve convinced me it would likely have limited impact.
4) This is a good point. Although it seems like having fellows could actually increase attendance at events. In any case, you’ve convinced me to defer a fellow program until at least after the conference before re-considering in light of the new evidence we’ll have gathered.
5) I disagree that the targets are ‘stratospheric’ – although they are optimistic. I also don’t see the problem with the ‘gung-ho start-up ethos’ – it gets quite a lot done. The targets are hard to achieve, and it’s very unlikely we’ll hit all of them, but we’ll try and get pretty far in the process. Failing at achieving optimistic targets but getting quite far towards them in striving is much preferable to achieving unambitious ones and sitting back in satisfaction.
Having made that philosophical objection, I do agree our targets are in some cases probably unrealistic. I’d welcome a more detailed explanation of which ones you think are unrealistic and why, as well as suggestions for more reasonable targets.
6) From my perspective, Envision fills a clear and gaping niche. ‘Interested in science and technology’ is different from ‘interested in the medium-term and long-term future of science and technology and what we can do to pioneer a better future with the tools we have and will have available.’ The differences: more action-oriented; focused on future issues that do not receive much attention on college campuses; more broadly focused on multiple technologies and how they interact; integrating technology and science with ethics, policy, and entrepreneurship.
To use reductio ad absurdum on your argument of there existing separate groups that each touch on an aspect of Envision: there have always been groups for altruistic people and groups for effective people. That does not mean a group for effectively altruistic people can add no value.
I also don’t see much overlap with EA groups – most of our members are not EA, even though many have heard of it. Keep in mind we’re targeting future leaders, in particular those who do not yet have a concern for safety or awareness of the future of technology, to help them learn about it.
A final note – I think you overestimate how many similar student groups exist. We’ve now exhaustively gone through all student organizations at over a dozen universities, and have not yet come across an organization with significant overlap that is run well to the point of making Envision unnecessary. Cambridge is among those with the most potential candidates (although we’ve also had the most interest from students there, in addition to MIT, about starting a chapter).
Finally, as a thought experiment – how many student organizations contain entrepreneurs and policy-makers not in the EA sphere and have Andrew Critch and Robin Hanson as speakers?
Summing up
There is a lot to be said here. First, to break down your second sentence:
• Hyper-successful: I’m not entirely sure what this means, but I don’t see how Envision succeeding at its goals requires it. We certainly need success as a student group, but I don’t think we need substantially more than what would traditionally qualify as success for a student group, albeit repeated several times (which is certainly harder).
• Significant outside prestige: We need prestige among students, but I don’t see why outside prestige is necessary (if I’m interpreting this correctly). It helps with getting external organizations on board, but prestige is sufficient for this, not necessary – being students excited about the future of tech and an organization with the prospect of hiring opportunities, and in the EA sphere being a student organization with the goal of promoting safety, goes a long way.
• Access to extra-university elites: This is true, but we only need very limited access. Ie a few hours on a weekend to come speak or showcase your technology at a conference that pays for your flight, setting up a recruitment booth in return for providing a (for a company) small amount of money, having your name on a student organization and occasionally speaking to excited students, etc. We’ve so far been pretty successful at getting this since it’s low-cost. To be successful, we don’t need more than this – the more the better, but the acceptable threshold of access to ensure success is quite low. In light of this, looking at some other student groups, I think the amount that fail is less than the vast majority, especially when keeping in mind we’re partnering with organizations like Entrepreneurship Club that have already been successful on most relevant metrics and can advise us, lend us their credibility, and help us with recruiting.
On repeating the same process: Here I agree with you. This is certainly one of the most difficult parts of Envision’s strategy. Even if our success is limited to Princeton, though (and I have high confidence we’ll establish at least a few additional chapters at significant universities), I think the net impact is still sufficient to justify building Envision.
With regards to your second sentence:
• Predicting elite leaders – I agree this is difficult, but as I explained in the point about this, not necessary to success. Casting a wide net at universities most likely to produce future leaders ensures high probability of impacting the correct people. Predicting future leaders would be hugely beneficial, but failure here does not invalidate the value proposition.
• Tempting them to invest their time and attention in you – They need only attend a few events and change their minds. We need officers, but this is only a tiny subset, and I think there’s sufficient message attraction to fill this. Getting people to attend events is not trivial, but certainly doable, and has been done before, including by us.
• Ensuring momentum and resilience – I agree that this is a major challenge. However, as I outlined above in the relevant point, I think building a framework will make this significantly easier.
• Getting a nucleus of highly effective leaders to start parallel groups at other universities – I completely agree that this is extremely difficult and highly competitive. But in my experience the draw of starting a new organization, even as a chapter, is quite high. And again, I think the message is powerful and will in itself attract several such highly effective leaders.
For reasons I have already elaborated, I disagree that we have no edge in principle (interpreting this as a synonym for message – correct me if I’m wrong).
Track record – I agree we don’t yet have this, but neither did any organization (especially student organization) upon founding. And the partnership with existing student organizations quite significantly mitigates this.
On your last paragraph about other means of accomplishing what Envision has in mind:
• I agree on the importance of using existing ecosystems, and I think Envision is doing what you describe. Ie Entrepreneurship Club, a conference, being a student group, running a pitch competition, leveraging existing opinions and resources rather than producing our own. I would argue what Envision is doing is leveraging the existing ecosystem more than a student think-tank producing papers would be.
• The work of the Wilberforce Society is admirable, and we will certainly seek collaboration with them given this information about their concern for AI and the future of technology. But it doesn’t seem like the type of organization to attract entrepreneurs, future business leaders, and hardcore tech developers (I could be wrong about this). And signing up to write a paper about AI suggests a pre-established interest. Running such a panel is also high-effort, and it seems like it affected a handful of people. Again, not to say anything negative about Wilberforce Society at all – just to make the point that I don’t think this is necessarily far more effective than Envision. I think they serve different goals and should both exist.
Conclusion
First of all, thank you so much again for taking the time to write out this post. You’ve convinced me of a fair amount of significant changes to our plan, and helped better clarify others.
However, you have not persuaded me to change course. I think I’ve argued quite convincingly why Envision adds value – and I welcome any additional arguments for why it does not, or disagreements with my points. For the sake of keeping this at a readable length I skimmed over some points and left the details to inference, so also feel free to ask for clarification.
Thank you for the model-building offer. Depending on whether you think the model is still worth it, we would be interested in discussing further.
As a final note, Envision is exciting. And excitement is powerful.