This seems to be an unusual opportunity where Coefficient Giving[1] can donate and not incur any reputational costs[2]. because of LTF / OpenAI / Palantir’s unpopularity.
For example if CG’s c4 arm donated $1M to Bores, then I would expect good first-order effects for reasons in the above posts but also positive second-order reputational impacts:
AI populists often attack AI Safety / CG on the grounds that they’re just increasing the AI hype and are secretly AI industry shills. It would be very easy to that point and say that the biggest funder donated significant money to the anti-LTF candidate in a way it almost never does.
Concrete example: according to this politico article about these very tensions, More Perfect Union’s Faiz Shakir was very (unfairly) critical of AI safety[3] but he said he liked Bores in the same article.
AI may later trigger huge backlash if the unemployment rate spikes. In that case, it is particularly valuable for the AI Safety movement to credibly signal not being AI shills so the work of Redwood/Apollo/METR ends up important.
Also, truth isn’t on LTF’s side since their anti-Bores ads are very disingenous [4](moreso than even other political attack ads). Having truth on your side generally has good second-order effects.
I’m not familiar with the actual views of prominent CG-people beyond public statements so I’m unsure if a CG donation is possible. If it is possible, though, it seems very valuable.
EDIT: After thinking it over, I feel more unsure about the second-order impacts of this now, mostly because CG’s involvement may cause AI populists to sour on Bores (though the direct impacts seem good). I still think having a clear thing to point to populists that AI Safety (especially CG) is very anti AI-accelerationism is good on the long run. But I’m unsure about how to accomplish it.
Same logic applies to other prominent and wealthy people in AIS but note that according to Claude, other AIS funders like SFF and Manifund don’t have a c4 vehicle and cannot donate from the fund itself—and that more recent reporting indicates Anthropic hasn’t actually donated to Bores.
My (possibly mistaken) understanding is that CG typically doesn’t donate from its c4′s to political candidates largely because reputational costs may harm EA cause areas
To quote: ” ‘The [institutional AI Safety coalition] is comfortable with the politics around this centrism, of coziness around AI development,’ said Faiz Shakir, the executive director of the progressive nonprofit media organization More Perfect Union and a senior adviser to Sanders. ‘They’re deeply concerned, I think, about those of us who have far more committed views around pausing their AI development, and they’re spending a lot of dollars to go after us.’ ”
This is not legal. They could donate to a super PAC that supports candidates that support AI regulation, though (e.g. Public First, or they could start their own super PAC).
This seems to be an unusual opportunity where Coefficient Giving[1] can donate and not incur any reputational costs[2]. because of LTF / OpenAI / Palantir’s unpopularity.
For example if CG’s c4 arm donated $1M to Bores, then I would expect good first-order effects for reasons in the above posts but also positive second-order reputational impacts:
AI populists often attack AI Safety / CG on the grounds that they’re just increasing the AI hype and are secretly AI industry shills. It would be very easy to that point and say that the biggest funder donated significant money to the anti-LTF candidate in a way it almost never does.
Concrete example: according to this politico article about these very tensions, More Perfect Union’s Faiz Shakir was very (unfairly) critical of AI safety[3] but he said he liked Bores in the same article.
AI may later trigger huge backlash if the unemployment rate spikes. In that case, it is particularly valuable for the AI Safety movement to credibly signal not being AI shills so the work of Redwood/Apollo/METR ends up important.
Also, truth isn’t on LTF’s side since their anti-Bores ads are very disingenous [4](moreso than even other political attack ads). Having truth on your side generally has good second-order effects.
I’m not familiar with the actual views of prominent CG-people beyond public statements so I’m unsure if a CG donation is possible. If it is possible, though, it seems very valuable.
EDIT: After thinking it over, I feel more unsure about the second-order impacts of this now, mostly because CG’s involvement may cause AI populists to sour on Bores (though the direct impacts seem good). I still think having a clear thing to point to populists that AI Safety (especially CG) is very anti AI-accelerationism is good on the long run. But I’m unsure about how to accomplish it.
Same logic applies to other prominent and wealthy people in AIS but note that according to Claude, other AIS funders like SFF and Manifund don’t have a c4 vehicle and cannot donate from the fund itself—and that more recent reporting indicates Anthropic hasn’t actually donated to Bores.
My (possibly mistaken) understanding is that CG typically doesn’t donate from its c4′s to political candidates largely because reputational costs may harm EA cause areas
To quote: ” ‘The [institutional AI Safety coalition] is comfortable with the politics around this centrism, of coziness around AI development,’ said Faiz Shakir, the executive director of the progressive nonprofit media organization More Perfect Union and a senior adviser to Sanders. ‘They’re deeply concerned, I think, about those of us who have far more committed views around pausing their AI development, and they’re spending a lot of dollars to go after us.’ ”
See the first 2 minutes of this
This is not legal. They could donate to a super PAC that supports candidates that support AI regulation, though (e.g. Public First, or they could start their own super PAC).
Yeah, I should have clarified—I meant donating $1M to Public First to support Bores (assuming Public First agree).