These are interesting, but I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how power works in this case. The main questions are not “Which intellectual frames work?” but “What drives policy?”. For the Democrats in the US, it’s often The Groups: a loose conglomeration of dozens to hundreds of different think-tanks, nonprofits, and other orgs. These in turn are influenced by various sources including their own donors but also including academia. This lets us imagine a chain of events like:
Serious Academic Papers are published arguing that AGI is an extinction risk
Serious Academic People decide that AGI is an extinction risk
Some of The Groups decide that AGI is an extinction risk
Democrats endorse (purportedly) AGI-risk-reducing policies to get endorsements from The Groups
This might be wrong but it is functional as a theory of change.
What’s the Theory of Change for these frames? Going via voters is pretty risky, because politicians often don’t actually know what voters actually want. So who drives policy changes in the Republican party? Lobbyists and Donors? Individual political pressure groups like the Freedom Caucus (but then what drives those pressure groups, we need a smaller theory of change for them). I would guess that the most plausible ToC here is to change the minds of politicians directly through (non-monetary) lobbying. If so, have you had any success doing this?
These are interesting, but I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how power works in this case. The main questions are not “Which intellectual frames work?” but “What drives policy?”. For the Democrats in the US, it’s often The Groups: a loose conglomeration of dozens to hundreds of different think-tanks, nonprofits, and other orgs. These in turn are influenced by various sources including their own donors but also including academia. This lets us imagine a chain of events like:
Serious Academic Papers are published arguing that AGI is an extinction risk
Serious Academic People decide that AGI is an extinction risk
Some of The Groups decide that AGI is an extinction risk
Democrats endorse (purportedly) AGI-risk-reducing policies to get endorsements from The Groups
This might be wrong but it is functional as a theory of change.
What’s the Theory of Change for these frames? Going via voters is pretty risky, because politicians often don’t actually know what voters actually want. So who drives policy changes in the Republican party? Lobbyists and Donors? Individual political pressure groups like the Freedom Caucus (but then what drives those pressure groups, we need a smaller theory of change for them). I would guess that the most plausible ToC here is to change the minds of politicians directly through (non-monetary) lobbying. If so, have you had any success doing this?