I was thinking about this:

• Perhaps this link is relevant: https://www.fanaticalfuturist.com/2024/12/ai-agents-created-a-minecraft-civilisation-complete-with-culture-religion-and-tax/  (it's not a research paper, but neither you I think?)
• Voyager is a single agent, but it's very visual: https://voyager.minedojo.org/ 

• OpenAI already did the hide-and-seek project a while ago: https://openai.com/index/emergent-tool-use/ 

  
  While those are not examples of computer use, I think it fits the bill for a presentation of multi-agent capabilities in a visual way.

I'm happy to see that you are creating recaps for journalists and social media.

Regarding the comment on advocacy, "I think it also has some important epistemic challenges": I'm not going to deny that in a highly optimized slide deck, you won't have time to balance each argument. But also, does it matter that much? Rationality is winning, and to win, we need to be persuasive in a limited amount of time. I don't have the time to also fix civilizational inadequacy regarding epistemics, so I play the game, as is doing the other side.

Also, I'm not criticizing the work itself, but rather the justification or goal. I think that if you did the goal factoring, you could optimize for this more directly.

Let's chat in person !

I'm skeptical that this is the best way to achieve this goal, as many existing works already demonstrate these capabilities. Also, I think policymakers may struggle to connect these types of seemingly non-dangerous capabilities to AI risks. If I only had three minutes to pitch the case for AI safety, I wouldn't use this work; I would primarily present some examples of scary demos.

Also, what you are doing is essentially capability research, which is not very neglected. There are already plenty of impressive capability papers that I could use for a presentation.

For info, here is the deck of slides that I generally use in different context.

I have considerable experience pitching to policymakers, and I'm very confident that my bottleneck in making my case isn't a need for more experiments or papers, but rather more opportunities, more cold emails, and generally more advocacy.

I'm happy to jump on a call if you'd like to hear more about my perspective on what resonates with policymakers.

See also: We're Not Advertising Enough.

What's your theory of impact by doing this type of work?

We need to scale this massively. CeSIA is seriously considering to test the Direct Institutional Plan in France and in Europe.

Relatedly, I found the post We're Not Advertising Enough very good, and making a similar point a bit more theoretically.

I find this pretty convincing.

The small amendment that I would make is that the space of policy options is quite vast and taking time to compare different options is probably not a bad idea, but I largely agree that it would generally be much better for people to move to the n-1 level.

That's super interesting, thanks a lot for writing all of this.

I would agree if there remain humains after a biological catastrophe, I think that's not a big deal and it's easy to repopulate the planet.

I think it's more tricky in the situation above, where most of the economy is run by AI, thought I'm really not sure of this