Thanks for stating your objection to my argument. I agree with you and that is why I argue for the formation of a centrist party with AI Safety as an important issue, rather than a party which literally only speaks about AI, as the latter party would come across as unserious (even the Green Party does not do this with climate change). You can see the “What about other issues?” section about some general positions I think a party should take.
I also think an effective political party could grow support for AI Safety by leveraging media coverage in order to bring to light the dangers of AI and the necessity of regulation, so even if it starts as a fringe prospect, it will gain momentum over time.
To your second point about existing parties being able to adopt this as part of the platform, along with the potential bad optics of EAs/AI doomers “invading” existing parties, I think it is simply harder to succeed in political party primaries than as a third party candidate due to political party primaries having an unlevel playing field which favors catering to the idiosyncrasies of the party’s base and major party players.
To back this up, I do not see Chase Oliver getting anywhere as a Republican nominee, but he did gain some notoriety as a third party candidate. While it is in theory possible for pro-AI Safety rationalists to gain power through traditional parties, I feel like this would take a very long time and is less likely to succeed.
Ultimately, however, even if you think this has a slim chance of succeeding, I see some electoral effort as the only plausible way of achieving necessary government support for AI Safety, so I feel like something like this is still worth it if there is not a clear alternative.
Thanks for stating your objection to my argument. I agree with you and that is why I argue for the formation of a centrist party with AI Safety as an important issue, rather than a party which literally only speaks about AI, as the latter party would come across as unserious (even the Green Party does not do this with climate change). You can see the “What about other issues?” section about some general positions I think a party should take.
I also think an effective political party could grow support for AI Safety by leveraging media coverage in order to bring to light the dangers of AI and the necessity of regulation, so even if it starts as a fringe prospect, it will gain momentum over time.
To your second point about existing parties being able to adopt this as part of the platform, along with the potential bad optics of EAs/AI doomers “invading” existing parties, I think it is simply harder to succeed in political party primaries than as a third party candidate due to political party primaries having an unlevel playing field which favors catering to the idiosyncrasies of the party’s base and major party players.
To back this up, I do not see Chase Oliver getting anywhere as a Republican nominee, but he did gain some notoriety as a third party candidate. While it is in theory possible for pro-AI Safety rationalists to gain power through traditional parties, I feel like this would take a very long time and is less likely to succeed.
Ultimately, however, even if you think this has a slim chance of succeeding, I see some electoral effort as the only plausible way of achieving necessary government support for AI Safety, so I feel like something like this is still worth it if there is not a clear alternative.