I know very little about it, but it seems like extremely little. From skimming the consensus “research priorities by area” list, it seems public facing and everything-bagel-y. They identify seven areas of research priority, and they are: cyber misuse, bio/chem, child safety, mental health/consumer protection, AI agents in the economy, open weight model safety and security, and (finally) loss of control and oversight.
Most of these things are not about reducing X risk at all, and I think it is clear that this group is thinking about different things than the people I’m envisioning, who are most worried about existential risk. Also, the leading proposals in the output are quite broad. I would want leading proposals from the output of the cause prio conference to be unusually specific.
The short answer is: sort of in vibes, not at all in practice, and the main issue is a waterline for participation that is too low in terms of seriousness about X-risk and openness/rationality.
I know very little about it, but it seems like extremely little. From skimming the consensus “research priorities by area” list, it seems public facing and everything-bagel-y. They identify seven areas of research priority, and they are: cyber misuse, bio/chem, child safety, mental health/consumer protection, AI agents in the economy, open weight model safety and security, and (finally) loss of control and oversight.
Most of these things are not about reducing X risk at all, and I think it is clear that this group is thinking about different things than the people I’m envisioning, who are most worried about existential risk. Also, the leading proposals in the output are quite broad. I would want leading proposals from the output of the cause prio conference to be unusually specific.
The short answer is: sort of in vibes, not at all in practice, and the main issue is a waterline for participation that is too low in terms of seriousness about X-risk and openness/rationality.