This looks really cool. I'm actually trying to break into AI safety right now so I don't have what you're looking for at the moment, but do you guys ever take on volunteers? Would love to help out in whatever way I can while I'm learning.

Will definitely pass this along to people I know who might fit better.

This is actually solving a problem i've been running into. been trying to get into fellowships and just... haven't. reading this i realized it's not just the limited spots. It's that programs only really want researchers. I'm interested in international coordination and policy stuff, which doesn't fit their mold so i just don't exist to them.

What you're saying actually matters. when programs only talk about research, people like me stop trying. saying "we need coordinators and policy people" would probably unlock a bunch of people who've already given up.

Thank you for compiling this timeline. It's valuable to see these efforts documented.

As someone from Africa currently transitioning into AI safety policy and governance. Despite the initiatives listed here, I've faced repeated rejections from fellowships and mentorship programs. Finding international roles has been extremely difficult, and I sometimes wonder if geographic location plays a role.

The data shows promising trends in geographic diversity among newer cohorts, but the challenge isn't just getting people from LMICs interested - it's providing genuine pathways to contribute. What's missing are:

- Mentorship programs designed to bridge knowledge and network gaps for people from LMICs

- Entry-level or volunteer roles in AI safety that don't require extensive prior credentials  

- Virtual opportunities that don't require relocation

I'm not suggesting lowering standards, but our current systems may inadvertently filter for geographic and institutional privilege alongside competence.

I'd appreciate hearing from others who've navigated similar challenges, or from organizations with suggestions for gaining experience in AI safety from my position.

True, though I think the behind the scenes approach has its limits too. Policy still needs to be sold and implemented by people who face the public.

Even if EAs stay in wonky roles, someone eventually has to translate those ideas into something voters actually care about.

Yeah, makes sense. Local EAs would definitely understand the political landscape better than outsiders designing policies from afar.

What interests me most is the tension between EA's technocratic incrementalism and development realities. The preference for "wonky, technical policies" often assumes good implementation will follow good design, but I've seen well-designed interventions fail without broader political support.