If (1) Alice is good on AI safety, (2) Alice is legibly qualified for the role, (3) the election is tractable, and (4) the role is important or presents a credible path to an important government role by ~2033, then Alice will likely receive donations and maybe other support from AI safety folks (even in the absence of a public blogpost). Unfortunately, this conjunction is rare. E.g. running for state legislature generally fails #4 (especially if you run in 2028 or later), and AI safety people running for higher office out of the blue generally fails #2 and #3. I feel mostly pessimistic about random smart people “thinking about running for office” for the first time in 2028 and beyond, unless their resume gives them an excellent opportunity (but not confident + it depends).
The fact that candidates can expect support from individual donors is currently illegible outside of the AI safety community. I think that’s fine, in part because I’m much more excited about candidates who are actually AI-safety-motivated rather than just think-AI-safety-is-currently-politically-expedient. (Unlike for the NRA, a candidate saying they support/oppose certain regulation or making some pledge doesn’t go super far for AI safety and better futures [although it could be helpful in various ways].) More legible is the existence of AI-safety-ish super PACs like Public First; it’s good for Congress to know that AI safety is a strong political force (and fortunately this is becoming more salient, e.g. NYT yesterday). In general helping powerful incumbents feel safe standing up to the AI industry seems [more-important / higher-leverage] than getting new people to run [there’s also many other goals for AI safety in politics].
If (1) Alice is good on AI safety, (2) Alice is legibly qualified for the role, (3) the election is tractable, and (4) the role is important or presents a credible path to an important government role by ~2033, then Alice will likely receive donations and maybe other support from AI safety folks (even in the absence of a public blogpost). Unfortunately, this conjunction is rare. E.g. running for state legislature generally fails #4 (especially if you run in 2028 or later), and AI safety people running for higher office out of the blue generally fails #2 and #3. I feel mostly pessimistic about random smart people “thinking about running for office” for the first time in 2028 and beyond, unless their resume gives them an excellent opportunity (but not confident + it depends).
The fact that candidates can expect support from individual donors is currently illegible outside of the AI safety community. I think that’s fine, in part because I’m much more excited about candidates who are actually AI-safety-motivated rather than just think-AI-safety-is-currently-politically-expedient. (Unlike for the NRA, a candidate saying they support/oppose certain regulation or making some pledge doesn’t go super far for AI safety and better futures [although it could be helpful in various ways].) More legible is the existence of AI-safety-ish super PACs like Public First; it’s good for Congress to know that AI safety is a strong political force (and fortunately this is becoming more salient, e.g. NYT yesterday). In general helping powerful incumbents feel safe standing up to the AI industry seems [more-important / higher-leverage] than getting new people to run [there’s also many other goals for AI safety in politics].