If the issue is picked up by liberal media, it will do more harm than good with conservatives and the current administration. Avoiding polarization is probably even more important than spreading public awareness. That depends on your theory if change, but you should have one carefully thought to guide publicity efforts.
Likely true, but I also notice there’s been a surprising amount of drift of political opinions from the left to the right in recent years. The right tends to put their own spin on these beliefs, but I suspect many are highly influenced by the left nonetheless.
Some examples of right-coded beliefs which I suspect are, to some degree, left-inspired:
“Capitalism undermines social cohesion. Consumerization and commoditization are bad. We’re a nation, not an economy.”
“Trans women undermine women’s rights and women’s spaces. Motherhood, and women’s dignity, must be defended from neoliberal profit motives.”
“US foreign policy is controlled by a manipulative deep state that pursues unnecessary foreign interventions to benefit elites.”
“US federal institutions like the FBI are generally corrupt and need to be dismantled.”
“We can’t trust elites. They control the media. They’re out for themselves rather than ordinary Americans.”
“Your race, gender, religion, etc. are some of the most important things about you. There’s an ongoing political power struggle between e.g. different races.”
“Big tech is corrosive for society.”
“Immigration liberalization is about neoliberal billionaires undermining wages for workers like me.”
“Shrinking the size of government is not a priority. We should make sure government benefits everyday people.”
Anti-semitism, possibly.
One interesting thing has been seeing the left switch to opposing the belief when it’s adopted by the right and takes a right-coded form. E.g. US institutions are built on white supremacy and genocide, fundamentally institutionally racist, backed by illegitimate police power, and need to be defunded/decolonized/etc… but now they are being targeted by DOGE, and it’s a disaster!
(Note that the reverse shift has also happened. E.g. Trump’s approaches to economic nationalism, bilateral relations w/ China, and contempt for US institutions were all adopted by Biden by some degree.)
So yeah, my personal take is that we shouldn’t worry about publication venue that much. Just avoid insulting anyone, and make your case in a way which will appeal to the right (e.g. “we need to defend our traditional way of being human from AI”). If possible, target center-leaning publications like The Atlantic over explicitly progressive publications like Mother Jones.
That is a great point and your examples are fascinating!
I think polarization is still quite possible and should be avoided at high cost. If AI safety becomes the new climate change, it seems pretty clear that it will create conflict in public opinion and deadlock in politics.
I think the way the issue is framed matters a lot. If it’s a “populist” framing (“elites are in it for themselves, they can’t be trusted”), that frame seems to have resonated with a segment of the right lately. Climate change has a sanctimonious frame in American politics that conservatives hate.
Agreed, tone and framing are crucial. The populist framing might work for conservatives, but it will also set off the enemy rhetoric detectors among liberals. So coding it to either side is prone to backfire. Based on that logic, I’m leaning toward thinking that it needs to be framed to carefully avoid or walk the center line between the terms and framings of both sides.
It would be just as bad to have it polarized as conservative, right? Although we’ve got four years of conservatism, so it might be worth thinking seriously about whether that trade might be worth it. I’m not sure a liberal administration would undo restrictions on AI even if they had been conservative-coded...
Interesting. I’m feeling more like saying “the elites want to make AI that will make them rich while putting half the world out of a job”. That’s probably true as far as it goes, and it could be useful.
I think the National Review is the most prestigious conservative magazine in the US, but there are various others. City Journal articles have also struck me as high-quality in the past. I think Coleman Hughes writes for them, and he did a podcast with Eliezer Yudkowsky at one point.
However, as stated in the previous link, you should likely work your way up and start by pitching lower-profile publications.
I do think that pitching publicly is important.
If the issue is picked up by liberal media, it will do more harm than good with conservatives and the current administration. Avoiding polarization is probably even more important than spreading public awareness. That depends on your theory if change, but you should have one carefully thought to guide publicity efforts.
Likely true, but I also notice there’s been a surprising amount of drift of political opinions from the left to the right in recent years. The right tends to put their own spin on these beliefs, but I suspect many are highly influenced by the left nonetheless.
Some examples of right-coded beliefs which I suspect are, to some degree, left-inspired:
“Capitalism undermines social cohesion. Consumerization and commoditization are bad. We’re a nation, not an economy.”
“Trans women undermine women’s rights and women’s spaces. Motherhood, and women’s dignity, must be defended from neoliberal profit motives.”
“US foreign policy is controlled by a manipulative deep state that pursues unnecessary foreign interventions to benefit elites.”
“US federal institutions like the FBI are generally corrupt and need to be dismantled.”
“We can’t trust elites. They control the media. They’re out for themselves rather than ordinary Americans.”
“Your race, gender, religion, etc. are some of the most important things about you. There’s an ongoing political power struggle between e.g. different races.”
“Big tech is corrosive for society.”
“Immigration liberalization is about neoliberal billionaires undermining wages for workers like me.”
“Shrinking the size of government is not a priority. We should make sure government benefits everyday people.”
Anti-semitism, possibly.
One interesting thing has been seeing the left switch to opposing the belief when it’s adopted by the right and takes a right-coded form. E.g. US institutions are built on white supremacy and genocide, fundamentally institutionally racist, backed by illegitimate police power, and need to be defunded/decolonized/etc… but now they are being targeted by DOGE, and it’s a disaster!
(Note that the reverse shift has also happened. E.g. Trump’s approaches to economic nationalism, bilateral relations w/ China, and contempt for US institutions were all adopted by Biden by some degree.)
So yeah, my personal take is that we shouldn’t worry about publication venue that much. Just avoid insulting anyone, and make your case in a way which will appeal to the right (e.g. “we need to defend our traditional way of being human from AI”). If possible, target center-leaning publications like The Atlantic over explicitly progressive publications like Mother Jones.
That is a great point and your examples are fascinating!
I think polarization is still quite possible and should be avoided at high cost. If AI safety becomes the new climate change, it seems pretty clear that it will create conflict in public opinion and deadlock in politics.
I think the way the issue is framed matters a lot. If it’s a “populist” framing (“elites are in it for themselves, they can’t be trusted”), that frame seems to have resonated with a segment of the right lately. Climate change has a sanctimonious frame in American politics that conservatives hate.
Agreed, tone and framing are crucial. The populist framing might work for conservatives, but it will also set off the enemy rhetoric detectors among liberals. So coding it to either side is prone to backfire. Based on that logic, I’m leaning toward thinking that it needs to be framed to carefully avoid or walk the center line between the terms and framings of both sides.
It would be just as bad to have it polarized as conservative, right? Although we’ve got four years of conservatism, so it might be worth thinking seriously about whether that trade might be worth it. I’m not sure a liberal administration would undo restrictions on AI even if they had been conservative-coded...
Interesting. I’m feeling more like saying “the elites want to make AI that will make them rich while putting half the world out of a job”. That’s probably true as far as it goes, and it could be useful.
I’m not sure about that, does Bernie Sanders rhetoric set off that detector?
Maybe one can start with prestige conservative media? Is that a thing? I’m not from the US and thus not very well versed.
I think the National Review is the most prestigious conservative magazine in the US, but there are various others. City Journal articles have also struck me as high-quality in the past. I think Coleman Hughes writes for them, and he did a podcast with Eliezer Yudkowsky at one point.
However, as stated in the previous link, you should likely work your way up and start by pitching lower-profile publications.