Luisa’s work on nuclear risk seems like it might attract a very different audience from RP’s animal work (especially since it was featured in Marginal Revolution). Have any organizations/​government officials who work on nuclear policy gotten in touch with Luisa or RP as a result of those posts?
I’m currently in touch with folks at the Nuclear Threat Initiative and a few other similar think tanks, but I don’t think my work has meaningfully influenced their views/​activities. My hope is that this will change as I continue building my relationships with them.
To date, I think the audience that has engaged most with (and gotten the most value out of) the nuclear risks series is funders in the EA space. For example, I understand that multiple EA funders/​grantmakers have drawn on (and augmented) some of my nuclear risks models as part of some cause prioritization work they’ve done.
I think it’s also worth noting that we don’t really have any suggestions for governments yet, which would limit our usefulness… but we’re getting there.
Do you think that the EA focus on your work is more because Rethink is a known/​trusted org in the community and relatively unknown outside, or because the way you use language and models syncs up with how EA funders prefer to think about risk, but is more atypical outside EA? (There may be some other most important factor, of course.)
I would think it is mostly because Rethink is a known/​trusted org in the community and relatively unknown outside, though I could easily it being the other part too. I don’t think I have a good feel yet for how typical national and nuclear security organizations talk yet.
Luisa’s work on nuclear risk seems like it might attract a very different audience from RP’s animal work (especially since it was featured in Marginal Revolution). Have any organizations/​government officials who work on nuclear policy gotten in touch with Luisa or RP as a result of those posts?
Hey Aaron, good question!
I’m currently in touch with folks at the Nuclear Threat Initiative and a few other similar think tanks, but I don’t think my work has meaningfully influenced their views/​activities. My hope is that this will change as I continue building my relationships with them.
To date, I think the audience that has engaged most with (and gotten the most value out of) the nuclear risks series is funders in the EA space. For example, I understand that multiple EA funders/​grantmakers have drawn on (and augmented) some of my nuclear risks models as part of some cause prioritization work they’ve done.
I think it’s also worth noting that we don’t really have any suggestions for governments yet, which would limit our usefulness… but we’re getting there.
Thanks for responding!
Do you think that the EA focus on your work is more because Rethink is a known/​trusted org in the community and relatively unknown outside, or because the way you use language and models syncs up with how EA funders prefer to think about risk, but is more atypical outside EA? (There may be some other most important factor, of course.)
I would think it is mostly because Rethink is a known/​trusted org in the community and relatively unknown outside, though I could easily it being the other part too. I don’t think I have a good feel yet for how typical national and nuclear security organizations talk yet.