I thought I was giving the strong version. I have never heard an account of a warning shot theory of change that wasn’t “AI will cause a small-scale disaster and then the political will to do something will materialize”. I think the strong version would be my version, educating people first so they can understand small-scale disasters that may occur for what they are. I have never seen or heard this advocated in AI Safety circles before.

And I described how impactful chatGPT was on me, which imo was a warning shot gone right in my case.

What is the “strong” version of warning shots thinking?

I'm just actually really curious what they disagree with! 

I'm so curious why the initial spate of disagree-reactors disagreed with the post. It still has more disagrees than agrees. What's crux?

So good to see something go right. Great work!

I call this pollen strategy and I very much believe in it

High praise!

But EA is not cause agnostic OR cause neutral atm

Agree with your read of the situation, and I wish that the solution could be for EA to actually be cause neutral… but if that’s not on offer then I agree the intro material should be more upfront about that.

How do people think these consensuses are achieved? Acting like the issue matters and combatting the obfuscation of industry are a big part of that.