I am glad to see somebody make the point properly. It's a weird state of affairs. We know the models can implement PoCs for CVEs better than most coders. We know the models can persuade people pretty effectively. Obviously the models can spread and change very easily. It's also easy for a rogue deployment to hide because datacenter GPUs draw 70W idle and update scripts constantly use tons of bandwidth. There's just no urgency to any of it.

How do you measure results?

If you wanted to take this idea to an absurd level, you could install a dropped ceiling made partially of furnace filters, and a grid of fans above it. Maybe have the outer perimeter of fans blowing up and the inner area blowing down, to try to get one large convection through the entire room.

How do you figure out the optimal filter thickness? If you hypothetically had a very weak fan then it wouldn't push much air through even furnace filters. If you had a magic constant air flow source then you would want the thickest filter possible.

I guess I am just wondering if you could use something better-looking and cheaper, like semi-transparent paper with lights behind it or a washable sheet/tapestry.

Have you heard of Big Ass Fans? It's a company that makes what you would expect. Do you think your ceiling fan filter could work with a 30ft fan?

What is the current popular (or ideally wise) wisdom wrt publishing demos of scary/spooky AI capabilities? I've heard the argument that moderately scary demos drive capability development into secrecy. Maybe it's just all in the details of who you show what when and what you say. But has someone written a good post about this question?

Einstein started doing research a few years before he actually had his miracle year. If he started at 26, he might have never found anything. He went to physics school at 17 or 18. You can't go to "AI safety school" at that age, but if you have funding then you can start learning on your own. It's harder to learn than (eg) learning to code, but not impossibly hard.

I am not opposed to funding 25 or 30 or 35 or 40 year olds, but I expect that the most successful people got started in their field (or a very similar one) as a teenager. I wouldn't expect funding an 18-year-old to pay off in less than 4 years. Sorry for being unclear on this in original post.

I don't have a witty, insightful, neutral-sounding way to say this. The grantmakers should let the money flow. There are thousands of talented young safety researchers with decent ideas and exceptional minds, but they probably can't prove it to you. They only need one thing and it is money.

They will be 10x less productive in a big nonprofit and they certainly won't find the next big breakthrough there.

(Meanwhile, there are becoming much better ways to make money that don't involve any good deeds at all.)

My friends were a good deal sharper and more motivated at 18 than now at 25. None of them had any chance at getting grants back then, but they have an ok shot now. At 35, their resumes will be much better and their minds much duller. And it will be too late to shape AGI at all.

I can't find a good LW voice for this point but I feel this is incredibly important. Managers will find all the big nonprofits and eat their gooey centers and leave behind empty husks. They will do this quickly, within a couple years of each nonprofit being founded. The founders themselves will not be spared. Look how the writing of Altman or Demis changed over the years.

The funding situation needs to change very much and very quickly. If a man has an idea just give him money and don't ask questions. (No, I don't mean me.)

Wasted opportunity to guarantee this post keeps getting holywar comments for the next hundred years.

This is pretty inspiring to me. Thank you for sharing.