Thanks for taking the time to read the article and provide your feedback.
I’m taking on board your comments, they all seem fair, so better to be direct and help the research improve, so thanks for being direct with your comments rather than temper them with a more compassionate tone.
I’d argue that there is some value in explaining some basic comms principles to those unfamiliar with them.
I’m going to take some time to go through your feedback and look at how the approach can improve, e.g. publish methodology, etc.
benrmatthews
Karma: 31
The clearest warning shot: how the OpenAI agent-swarm story engaged the audience most likely to believe it
Which audience is most neglected in AI safety communications?
Thanks @Martin Underwood. Both of your challenges have been taken on board.
On the bottleneck question, I’m planning to use the next few weeks of ecosystem conversations to test this, starting with whether the audience is policy-adjacent rather than general public. The ordering you suggest (policy audiences, professional groups, adjacent orgs) is probably the right one to work through.
On the analogy doing too much work, agreed. Climate Outreach is useful as a functional model (values segmentation, trusted messengers, long-term framing infrastructure) but the audience, governance, and legitimacy questions are hopefully different enough. Will treat it as a starting point for questions and further research.
Good prompt on finding 10 people to send it to directly. Will do that before making any more concrete plans.
Agreed, public engagement is not a direct bottleneck, but I think that governments respond to political salience, and the window for governance intervention is narrowing. Public engagement that builds salience might be what makes government regulation arrive in time rather than after power concentration. or gradual disempowerment has taken place.
On narrative overload, the Seismic research I cited found existential-risk framing performs worst across almost every demographic. So the problem may not just be too many voices, but that the loudest ones are using the register least likely to reach anyone not already convinced.
I can also envisage an “America Talks AI” version if the UK route isn’t the right one, built on More in Common’s US Hidden Tribes segments and that could launch through an existential-risk incubator with a strong US presence.
@Oscar Sykes Can I check for a source/reference to hire for lots of EA orgs saying they struggle to hire for ops, marketing and comms roles? As @SiobhanBall said, lots of people apply for these roles. Is it that the candidates aren’t good enough or have higher salary expectations? That there are lots of applicants to some EA org but not others? That some orgs are willing to pay higher salaries than others? Geographical differences, e.g. higher pay in the US compared to for example the UK?
Messages, frames and messengers: what might a Climate Outreach for AI Safety look like?
Hey @huw—would love to take you up on this offer. Will DM to arrange a chat.
What clear advantages come through creating a charity through AIM, compared to starting a charity independently?
What have been the commonalities between the most successful charities created through the programme so far?
Which makes for a better applicant: A researcher with no entrepreneurial skills, or an entrepreneur with no research skills?
YC does have a nonprofit program: https://www.ycombinator.com/nonprofits/
List of nonprofits YC have invested in, including 80,000 Hours: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies?nonprofit=true
Thanks—you’re right about the title, I second guessed myself and change the end of the title to fit in with the wider aims of the project and this weakened the article. The other title isn’t perfect but at least it would have been more realistic.
Interesting point about “quantification theater” too, doesn’t come across as harsh but is a valid criticism.. One thing I’m struggling with is that some of the AI safety communicators say that they know a lot of these comms basics and what content will engage its target audiences due to instinct. Is there not a value to try and quantify / codify an audience’s reactions to content, and draw insights from that?
I’m not saying this particular article did that, but from a wider perspective is there any value there? Or does AI safety comms rely on experience and instinct in order to be effective?
Genuine question to try and understand more.