Co-founded Nonlinear.org, an x-risk incubator. Also into web3, history, rapid learning, complex systems.
DM on twitter for faster response: www.twitter.com/emersonspartz
Sanjay, I just realized you were the top comment, and now I notice that I feel confused, because your comment directly inspired me to express my views in a tone that was more opinionated and less-hedgy.
I appreciate - no, I *love* - EA's truth seeking culture but I wish it were more OK to add a bit of Gryffindor to balance out the Ravenclaw.
Thanks for the feedback. I tried to do both. I think the doomerism levels are so intense right now and need to be balanced out with a bit of inspiration.
I worry that the doomer levels are so high EAs will be frozen into inaction and non-EAs will take over from here. This is the default outcome, I think.
Going to say something seemingly-unpopular in a tone that usually gets downvoted but I think needs to be said anyway:
This stat is why I still have hope: 100,000 capabilities researchers vs 300 alignment researchers.
Humanity has not tried to solve alignment yet.
There's no cavalry coming - we are the cavalry.
I am sympathetic to fears of a new alignment researchers being net negative, and I think plausibly the entire field has, so far, been net negative, but guys, there are 100,000 capabilities researchers now! One more is a drop in the bucket.
If you're still on the sidelines, go post that idea that's been gathering dust in your Google Docs for the last six months. Go fill out that fundraising application.
We've had enough fire alarms. It's time to act.
We built an EA bounty platform and have paid out a few dozen bounties!
Great idea! Would love to help you with this - I'm both an entrepreneur, a history nerd (1,000+ books) and am very interested in AI governance.
Let me know: email@example.com or Twitter DM @EmersonSpartz
Yes, that counts as AI-safety related :)