I beta tested a new movement building format last night: online networking. It seems to have legs.

V quick theory of change: 
> problem it solves: not enough people in AIS across Australia (especially) and New Zealand are meeting each other (this is bad for the movement and people's impact).
> we need to brute force serendipity to create collabs.
> this initiative has v low cost

quantitative results:
> I purposefully didn't market it hard because it was a beta. I literally got more people that I hoped for
> 22 RSVPs and 18 attendees
> this says to me I could easily get 40+
> average score for below question was 7.27, which is very good for a beta test

I used Zoom, which was extremely clunky. These results suggest to me I should;
> invest in software designed for this use case, not zoom 

> segment by career stream (governance vs technical) and/or experience (beginner vs advanced)
> run it every second month

I have heaps of qualitative feedback from participants but don't have time to share it here.

Email me if interested: yanni@aisafetyanz.com.au

Is anyone in the AI Governance-Comms space working on what public outreach should look like if lots of jobs start getting automated in < 3 years? 

I point to Travel Agents a lot not to pick on them, but because they're salient and there are lots of them. I think there is a reasonable chance in 3 years that industry loses 50% of its workers (3 million globally).

People are going to start freaking out about this. Which means we're in "December 2019" all over again, and we all remember how bad Government Comms were during COVID.

Now is the time to start working on the messaging!

Three million people are employed by the travel (agent) industry worldwide. I am struggling to see how we don't lose 80%+ of those jobs to AI Agents in 3 years (this is ofc just one example). This is going to be an extremely painful process for a lot of people.

I should have been clearer - I like the fact that they're trying to create a larger tent and (presumably) win ethics people over. There are many reasons not also not like the ad. I would also guess that they have an automated campaign running with several (maybe dozens) of pieces of creative. Without seeing their analytics it would be impossible to know which performs the best, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was this one (lists work).

I really like this ad strategy from BlueDot. 5 stars.

90% of the message is still x / c-risk focussed, but by including "discrimination" and "loss of social connection" they're clearly trying to either (or both);

1. create a big tent
2. nudge people that are in "ethics" but sympathetic to x / c-risk into x / c-risk

(prediction: 4000 disagreement Karma)

Thanks for the heads up! Should be there now :)

[IMAGE] Extremely proud and excited to watch Greg Sadler (CEO of Good Ancestors Policy) and Soroush Pour (Co-Founder of Harmony Intelligence) speak to the Australian Federal Senate Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence. This is a big moment for the local movement. Also, check out who they ran after.

I think how delicately you treat your personal Overton Window should also depend on your timelines. 

My instinct as to why people don't find it a compelling argument;

1. They don't have short timelines like me, and therefore chuck it out completely
2. Are struggling to imagine a hostile public response to 15% unemployment rates
3. Copium 

I always get downvoted when I suggest that (1) if you have short timelines and (2) you decide to work at a Lab then (3) people might hate you soon and your employment prospects could be damaged.

What is something obvious I'm missing here? 

One thing I won't find convincing is someone pointing at the Finance industry post GFC as a comparison. 

I believe the scale of unemployment could be much higher. E.g. 5% ->15% unemployment in 3 years.