Thanks for your response! It's cool to see that there is science supporting this approach. The step-by-step journey from what we already know to the conclusion was very important to us. I noticed a couple of years ago that I tend to dismiss people's ideas very quickly, and since then I've been making the effort to not be too narcissistic.

I've said for a long time now that I think AI safety people are bad at explaining themselves. I gave a presentation about AI safety at an AI club last week and we seemed to be pretty convincing, especially to the club's leadership. Somebody joined one of our club's meetings afterwards to hear about how to start a career in AI safety. Maybe now would be a good time to post about that. For reference, here's a video of the presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4fkKcLhEyQ

I'm shocked by how much disagreement this has. This is the bare minimum if you ask me

For what it's worth, I feel like YouTube should know by now that I'm interested in effective altruism, yet I've gotten no ads for the book. I'm not sure how this campaign is being done.

I'm worried about how much this campaign hurt the perception of EA as a whole. My guess would be not too much, since it's a local primary race, but I'm sure there are some people skeptical of the community. It's also possible that crypto is just easier to understand as bad than EA is, so that's what Salinas decided to run on. I'd argue that we don't know yet how EA affects a candidate's campaign. Although, most candidates probably have something that could drown out EA anyway, although probably not anything as damaging as crypto was.