Thanks for writing this up, and congrats on having preliminary promising signs!

I left a bunch of more minor comments in the CEA sheet (thanks for making that public).

Are there any interest groups on the other side of this issue? I suppose budget hawks and fiscal conservatives may try to shoot down any new funding plan, particularly given EU budgetary woes. But otherwise, it seems like a good issue in terms of not making powerful enemies (since the Pharma industry is onside).

In the field where you can leave a comment after voting it says the comment will be copied here but not who you voted for, probably some people just missed that info though.

How come LTFF isn't in the donation election? Maybe it is too late to be added now though.

How does LTFF relate to https://www.airiskfund.com/about?

I am confused given the big overlap in people and scope. 

Why do you think tactical voting is good/should be allowed? (I haven't thought about it much myself, I just have a vague sense that it often seen as bad.)

I agree these sound like great (though of course high-risk) opportunities, but find myself confused: why are such things not already being funded?

My understanding is that Good Ventures is moving away from some such areas. But what about e.g. the EA Animal Welfare Fund or other EA funders? I don't know much about animal welfare funding, so on face value I am pretty convinced these seem worth funding, but I am worried I am missing something if more sensible/knowledgeable people aren't already funding them. (Though deferring too much to other funders could create too much group-think.)

I would also be interested in your thoughts on @taoburga's push back here. (Tao, I think I have a higher credence than you that Pause advocacy is net positive, but I agree it is messy and non-obvious.)

Could you spell out why you think this information would be super valuable? I assume something like you would worry about Jaan's COIs and think his philanthropy would be worse/less trustworthy?

On Pauses

• If the US AI industry slowed down, but the rest of the world didn't, how good or bad would this be? How could we avoid adverse selection where countries that don't pause are presumably going to be less interested in safety all else equal?
• In general, are there any notable updates/things you've changed your mind about/relevant things changing in the world since you wrote  https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Y4SaFM5LfsZzbnymu/the-case-for-ai-safety-advocacy-to-the-public?

(As you note much of the value may come from your advocacy making more 'mainstream' policies more palatable, in which case the specifics of Pause itself matter less, but are still good to think about.)

Adverse selection

• What did SFF or the funders you applied to or talked to say (insofar as you know/are allowed to share)?

I am thinking a bit about adverse selection in longtermist grantmaking and how there are pros and cons to having many possible funders. Someone else not funding you could be evidence I/others shouldn’t either, but conversely updating too much on what a small number of grantmakers think could lead to missing lots of great opportunities as a community.