case studies of individuals who were convicted of fraud and then went on to have successful finance-y careers without further misconduct

Claude says, with various caveats: Michael Milken, Steve Madden, Marc Rich, Dennis Kozlowski, Andrew Fastow.

Caroline presumably would just pay back?

edit: update:

As others have noted in this thread, remember The Altruists will come out in November, which will lead to more media attention to both Caroline personally and her connection to EA as a whole.

Data point: I'm not posting here as much as before because the new UI is frankly just dogshit.

How impactful would it be to copies of @Garrison's new book Obsolete to elected officials who belong to its political target audience (Dems, particularly left ones) and might not have been responsive to traditional x-risk-centric comms (e.g. IABIED)?

My first Fable benchmark was to one-shot turning `emacs -batch -l dunnet` into a graphical adventure game and it hit the safety guardrails bc one of the puzzles involve nitroglycerine 😭

I, er, do not think we're bottlenecked in "attention brought to the most popular politician in the US [who happens to be an advocate for AI safety]" (as opposed to, say, "attention brought to AI safety [by the most popular politician in the US]").

I very much expect a speaker at an EA conference talking about the benefits of torture would be quickly shown the door. More to the point, this goes double for a speaker saying EAs should ditch the "doing good impartially based on reason and evidence" thing and instead pick a Great Leader to never criticize and embark on a crusade to genocide the inferior races.

Is Bernie's AI sovereign wealth fund proposal good or bad for AI safety?

(I'm deliberately sidelining the details of how exactly to establish an AI SWF because I don't think it is important this early in the conversation.)

On the pro side, a SWF is a good answer to intelligence curse issues. It may also give an higher chance of AI risks ("near-term" or "long-term") being weighted into AIcos' decisions (particularly those who are supposed to be PBCs), for the same reason the LTFF and OpenAI Foundation are beneficial and dilution through IPOs might be dangerous and lead them to act more like any publicly listed company.

A more subtle pro would be that with the more immediate and intense social fear of corporate domination subsiding, this would leave room for the more complicated issues, including existential risk, to enter the public debate.

On the anti side, there has been an argument floating around that the government owning AI stocks might discourage it from taking measures that might hurt AI profits.

I think this argument is very weak, the economy is already quite dependent on AI companies doing well, and oil SWFs don't seem to have been an issue for Norway and even the Gulf taking the green transition seriously.

I'm not even sure e.g. a pause would be a bad thing economically for AI companies? Training increasingly large models is the whole reason they can't make a profit right now.

The more interesting anti argument is that, badly constructed (in particular, if the influence of the "unitary executive" is stronger than the influence of the bipartisan, deliberative congress), this could serve as a move toward greater centralization into a small group, which would neutralize most of the pros I discussed earlier. This part is certainly more worrisome considering the current levels of corruption going on.