I'm a researcher in psychology and philosophy.
The post seems to confuse the postdoctoral fellowship and the PhD fellowship (assuming the text on the grant interface is correct). It's the postdoc fellowship that has an $80,000 stipend, whereas the PhD fellowship stipend is $40,000.
I think "Changes in funding in the AI safety field" was published by the Centre for Effective Altruism.
Part 2: https://twitter.com/dwarkesh_sp/status/1673355293890347010
The transcript can be found on this link as well.
You may want to have a look at the list of topics. Some of the terms above are listed there; e.g. Bayesian epistemology, counterfactual reasoning, and the unilateralist's curse.
I gave an argument for why I don't think the cry wolf-effects would be as large as one might think in World A. Afaict your comment doesn't engage with my argument.I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your comment about World B. If we manage to permanently solve the risks relating to AI, then we've solved the problem. Whether some people will then be accused of having cried wolf seems far less important relative to that.
I also guess cry wolf-effects won't be as large as one might think - e.g. I think people will look more at how strong AI systems appear at a given point than at whether people have previously warned about AI risk.
Thanks, very interesting.
Regarding the political views, there are two graphs, showing different numbers. Does the first include people who didn't respond to the political views question, whereas the second exclude them? If so, it might be good to clarify that. You might also clarify that the first graph/sets of numbers don't sum to 100%. Alternatively, you could just present the data that excludes non-responses, since that's in my view the more interesting data.