I would call the main AI 2027 report an advocacy document—its function is to tell a compelling story about how AI could cause large harms in the very near future. Although the authors claim that a “slowdown” is not their real policy recommendation, the entire structure of the piece (a good ending with a green button and a bad ending with a red button) strongly pushes readers in the direction of thinking that it would be good if the White House “centralizes compute and brings in external oversight.” The story contains enough concrete details that particular White House officials (like the VP) could imagine doing this, so whether the authors intended it or not, the document acts like an advocacy pitch that asks those officials to take these actions.
The research supporting the AI 2027 report is pushed back to a secondary page that readers can check in on if they’re still interested after they finish reading the advocacy document. This is good practice, and I would like to see more researchers adopt this type of structure. Unfortunately, most of our research today doesn’t include an advocacy document at all, let alone as the primary focus of media engagement.
I would call the main AI 2027 report an advocacy document—its function is to tell a compelling story about how AI could cause large harms in the very near future. Although the authors claim that a “slowdown” is not their real policy recommendation, the entire structure of the piece (a good ending with a green button and a bad ending with a red button) strongly pushes readers in the direction of thinking that it would be good if the White House “centralizes compute and brings in external oversight.” The story contains enough concrete details that particular White House officials (like the VP) could imagine doing this, so whether the authors intended it or not, the document acts like an advocacy pitch that asks those officials to take these actions.
The research supporting the AI 2027 report is pushed back to a secondary page that readers can check in on if they’re still interested after they finish reading the advocacy document. This is good practice, and I would like to see more researchers adopt this type of structure. Unfortunately, most of our research today doesn’t include an advocacy document at all, let alone as the primary focus of media engagement.