I’m really grateful to have worked alongside you! I admire your enthusiasm and careful thinking and am excited to see what you work on next :)

Interesting that a typical AI journalist is valued more than a typical AI technical researcher (1.2x) and typical AI policy person (1.7x). 

Just an FYI that most non-profits are often legally constrained on doing many sorts of political advocacy work, I think. 

National securitisation privileges extraordinary measures to defend the nation, often centred around military force and logics of deterrence/balance of power and defence. Humanity macrosecuritization suggests the object of security is to defend all of humanity, not just the nation, and often invokes logics of collaboration, mutual restraint and constraints on sovereignty.

I found this distinction really helpful. 

It reminds me of Holden Karnofsky's piece on How to make the best of the most important century (2021), in which he presents two contrasting frames: 

• The "Caution" frame. In this frame, many of the worst outcomes come from developing something like PASTA in a way that is too fast, rushed, or reckless. We may need to achieve (possibly global) coordination in order to mitigate pressures to race, and take appropriate care. (Caution)
• The "Competition" frame. This frame focuses not on how and when PASTA is developed, but who (which governments, which companies, etc.) is first in line to benefit from the resulting productivity explosion. (Competition)
• People who take the "caution" frame and people who take the "competition" frame often favor very different, even contradictory actions. Actions that look important to people in one frame often look actively harmful to people in the other.
  • I worry that the "competition" frame will be overrated by default, and discuss why below. (More)

FYI, I was making a difficult career decision a few months ago and found this post helpful. Thanks for writing it!

Love it.

Your discussion of how ‘Green’ vibes can fall short of really looking consequences in the face reminds of a quote:

“All that blood was never once beautiful, it was always just red.” - Kait Rokowski

Thanks for sharing this! I've really been liking your forum posts recently :) 

Oh sorry, I missed this! I should have read that more closely before commenting.

Fair enough. Interesting to see people's different intuitions on this. 

Registering that this line of questioning (and volume of questions) strikes me as a bit off-putting/ too intense. 

If someone asked about what "What were the key concerns here, and how were they discussed?" [...] "what questions did you ask, and what were the key considerations/evidence?" about interactions I had years ago, I would feel like they're holding me to an unrealistic standard of memory or documentation.  

(Although I do acknowledge the mood that these were some really important interactions. Scrutiny is an appropriate reaction, but I still find this off-putting.)