To provide a better response to your first question than the one I’ve provided below, I would need to ask him to explain more than he has already.
From what he has remarked, the first several meetings were very stressful (for most people, this would, of course, be the case!) but soon he adjusted and developed a routine for his meetings.
While the routine could go off course based on the responsiveness of the individual(s) present (one staffer kept nodding Yes, had no questions, and then 20 minutes later remarked that they “take into account” what had been said; another staffer remarked that the US simply needed to innovate AI as much as possible, and that safety that stifled this was not to be prioritized; these are statements paraphrased from my friend), I get the sense that in most instances he has been able to provide adequate context on his organization and the broader situation with AI first (not sure which of these two comes first and for how long they are discussed).
Concerning provision of a description of the AI context, I am not sure how dynamic they are; I think he mentioned querying the staffers on their familiarity, and the impression he had was that most staffers listened well and thought critically about his remarks.
After the aforementioned descriptions, my friend begins discussing measures that can be taken in support of AI Safety.
He mentioned that he tries to steer framings away from those invoking thoughts of arms races or weaponization and instead focuses on uncontrollability “race to the bottom” scenarios, since the former categorization(s) given by others to the staffers has, in his experience, in some instances downplayed concerns for catastrophe and increased focus on further expanding AI capabilities to “outcompete China”.
My friend’s strategy framings seem appropriate and he is a good orator, but I have not the nuanced suggestion that I wanted for my conversation with him, as I’ve not thought enough about which AI risk framings and safety proposals to have ready for staffers and as I believe talking to staffers qualifies as an instance of the proverb “an ounce of practice outweighs a pound of precept”.
Thank you for the typo-linting.
To provide a better response to your first question than the one I’ve provided below, I would need to ask him to explain more than he has already.
From what he has remarked, the first several meetings were very stressful (for most people, this would, of course, be the case!) but soon he adjusted and developed a routine for his meetings.
While the routine could go off course based on the responsiveness of the individual(s) present (one staffer kept nodding Yes, had no questions, and then 20 minutes later remarked that they “take into account” what had been said; another staffer remarked that the US simply needed to innovate AI as much as possible, and that safety that stifled this was not to be prioritized; these are statements paraphrased from my friend), I get the sense that in most instances he has been able to provide adequate context on his organization and the broader situation with AI first (not sure which of these two comes first and for how long they are discussed).
Concerning provision of a description of the AI context, I am not sure how dynamic they are; I think he mentioned querying the staffers on their familiarity, and the impression he had was that most staffers listened well and thought critically about his remarks.
After the aforementioned descriptions, my friend begins discussing measures that can be taken in support of AI Safety.
He mentioned that he tries to steer framings away from those invoking thoughts of arms races or weaponization and instead focuses on uncontrollability “race to the bottom” scenarios, since the former categorization(s) given by others to the staffers has, in his experience, in some instances downplayed concerns for catastrophe and increased focus on further expanding AI capabilities to “outcompete China”.
My friend’s strategy framings seem appropriate and he is a good orator, but I have not the nuanced suggestion that I wanted for my conversation with him, as I’ve not thought enough about which AI risk framings and safety proposals to have ready for staffers and as I believe talking to staffers qualifies as an instance of the proverb “an ounce of practice outweighs a pound of precept”.