This is one of the most exciting forecasting proposals I've read in some time. I'm thoroughly impressed, and I'm really eager to see more work building on top of this.

If someone ends up running an algorithmic forecasting tournament like the ones proposed in this article, count me in ;)

I agree that it's important to consider both needs and interests. Ultimately, a branding strategy should be embedded in a larger theory of change and strategy for your group, and that should determine which audiences you reach out to.
 

Regarding the latter, I agree that an interest in, say, hacker culture, does not adequately describe all people interested in CS. It might actually leave out a bunch of people that you should care about joining our group. At the same time, branding is all about tradeoffs, and you have to pick which things you cater to. Spread too thin, and you risk making the content too unappealing.

It's hard to give empirical data on this because I don't think we have a good track record of actually collecting it. I would be curious about groups trying things like A/B tests to refine their strategies.

So yeah, most of this is backed by a mix of anecdotes from organizers, marketing know-how, and some of what I learned running my old AI Safety Initiative. This is why I want to emphasize that most of this is to be taken as provisional rather than the final word on the matter.

I think this is fine: Epoch's work appeals to a broad audience, and Nat Friedman is a well-respected technologist.

I read your post while I was writing up the wiki article on Shapley values and thought it was really useful. Thanks for making that post!

Quick poll [✅ / ❌]: Do you feel like you don't have a good grasp of Shapley values, despite wanting to? 

(Context for after voting: I'm trying to figure out if more explainers of this would be helpful. I still feel confused about some of its implications, despite having spent significant time trying to understand it)

Can anyone who is more informed on NIST comment on whether high-quality comments tend to be taken into account? Are drafts open for comments often revised substantially in this way?