I took a development class in law school and thought the total focus on aid/politics/culture was a feature of it being in a law school. I guess not.

It seems like some discussion of s-risks is called for as they seem to be assumed away, though many longtermists are concerned about them. 

I was wondering if someone was looking into far UVC devices. I did briefly and it seems they're rare and maybe only available on a B2B basis. Also, I'd guess someone is currently working on a post about how EAGx Boston caused some higher-than-expected number of cases, so there's an update in favor of extra caution there. 

This interview with Obama Allan Defoe pointed to once is pretty instructive around these questions. On reflection, reasonable government actors see the case, it's just really hard to prioritize given short-run incentives ("maybe in 20 years the next generation will see things coming and deal with it").

My basic model is that government actors are all tied up by the stopping problem. If you ever want to do something good you need to make friends and win the next election. The voters and potential allies are even more short-termist than you. Availability bias explains why people would care about private nuclear weapons. Superintelligence codes as dinner party/dorm room chat. It will sell books, but it's not action relevant.  

Am I violating Reddiquette by advising people to browse the thread, use ctrl+F, and sort by new to find comments they might enjoy?