You have a list of "learn to learn" methods, and then you said "Can we haz nice thingss? Futureburger n real organk lief maybs?" I'm not sure I'm interpreting you correctly, but it sounds like you're saying something like

If we biological humans get sufficiently good at learning to learn, using methods such as the Doman method, mnemonics, etc., then perhaps we can keep up with the rate at which ASI learns things, and thus avoid bad outcomes where humans get completely dominated by ASI.

If that's what you mean then I disagree, I don't think our current understanding of the science of learning is remotely near where it would need to be to keep up with ASI, and in fact I would guess that even a perfect-learner human brain would still never be able to keep up with ASI regardless of how good a job it does. Human brains still have physical limits. An ASI need not have physical limits because it can (e.g.) add more transistors to its brain.

Harangue old-hand EA types to (i) talk about and engage with EA (at least a bit) if they are doing podcasts, etc; (ii) post on Forum (esp if posting to LW anyway), twitter, etc, engaging in EA ideas; (iii) more generally own their EA affiliation.

I think the carrot is better than the stick. Rather than (or in addition to) haranguing people who don't engage, what if we reward people who do engage? (Although I'm not sure what "reward" means exactly)

You could say I'm an old-hand EA type (I've been involved since 2012) and I still actively engage in the EA Forum. I wouldn't mind a carrot.

Will, I think you deserve a carrot, too. You've written 11 EAF posts in the past year! Most of them were long, too! I've probably cited your "moral error" post about a dozen times since you wrote it. I don't know how exactly I can reward you for your contributions but at a minimum I can give you a well-deserved compliment.

I see many other long-time EAs in this comment thread, most of whom I see regularly commenting/posting on EAF. They're doing a good job, too!

(I feel like this post sounds goofy but I'm trying to make it come across as genuine, I've been up since 4am so I'm not doing my best work right now)

What changed between yesterday and today? How did you manage to overcome the 5th obstacle? What I get from section 5 is that you overcame social pressure essentially by deciding to. But why did you decide to, and why now rather than (say) a month ago? Do you think are any lessons others could take from your experience about how to overcome social pressure?

I wrote a response on your shortform

A list of ideas:

• We need breadth-first AI safety plans
• Is it possible to persuade AI companies to slow down?
• AI companies owe the public an explanation of what they will do with ASI once they have it
• A frontier AI company should shut down as a costly signal that x-risk is a big deal
• Some AI safety trolley problems
• Pausing AI is the best general solution to every non-alignment problem with ASI (?)
• You only get one shot at making ASI safe, even in a gradual takeoff
• AI safety regulations would not be that onerous and I don't understand why people believe otherwise
• A compilation of evidence that AI companies can't be trusted to abide by voluntary commitments
• Literature review on the effectiveness disruptive or violent protests
• Protest cost-effectiveness BOTEC
• What evidence would convince us that LLMs are conscious?
• Pascal's Mugging is rarely relevant

Make your bets!

My prediction is that AI safety stuff will get more upvotes on LW, and animal welfare stuff will get more upvotes on EAF

I suspect that LW users are much more interested in AI safety and less vegan.

...darn, looks like I'm not gonna beat the house on this one

Separately from the debate of veganism vs eating meat, we have strong evidence that high intake of fiber, low intake of saturated fats, and low intake of red and/or processed meats are all correlated with positive health benefits.

There is also causal evidence, e.g. the Cochrane review, Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease.

My rough impression is that there are indeed some "AI safety" orgs that operate in the way you describe, where they are focused more on promoting US hegemony and less on preventing AI from killing everyone.* But CAIS is more on the notkilleveryoneism side of things.

*from what I've seen, the biggest offenders are CSET, Horizon Institute, and Fathom

I think that still leaves the question of why didn't Open Philanthropy (or any other big grantmakers besides SFF) fund CAIP. The original post identifies some missteps CAIP made but I also think most grantmakers' aversion to x-risk advocacy played a big role.