it's almost finished, planning to release in april

Much needed reporting!

I wouldn't update too much from Manifold or Metaculus.

Instead, I would look at how people who have a track record in thinking about AGI-related forecasting are updating.

See for instance this comment (which was posted post-o3, but unclear how much o3 caused the update): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K2D45BNxnZjdpSX2j/ai-timelines?commentId=hnrfbFCP7Hu6N6Lsp

Or going from this prediction before o3: https://x.com/ajeya_cotra/status/1867813307073409333

To this one: https://x.com/ajeya_cotra/status/1870191478141792626

Ryan Greenblatt made similar posts / updates.

Thanks for the offer! DMed you. We shot with:
- Camera A (wide shot):  FX3
- Camera B, C: FX30

From what I have read online, the FX30 is not "Netflix-approved" but it won't matter (for distribution) because "it only applies to Netflix produced productions and was really just based on some tech specs to they could market their 4k original content." (link). Basically, if the film has not been commissioned by Netflix, you do not have to satisfy these requirements. (link)

And even for Netflix originals (which won't be the case here), they're actually more flexible on their camera requirements for nonfiction work such as documentaries (they used to have a 80% on camera-approved threshold which they removed).

For our particular documentary, which is primarily interview-based in controlled lighting conditions, the FX30 and FX3 produce virtually identical image quality.

Thanks for the clarification. I have added another more nuanced bucket for people who have changed their positions throughout the year or were somewhat ambivalent towards the end (neither opposing nor supporting the bill strongly).

People who were initially critical and ended up somewhat in the middle

• Charles Foster (Lead AI Scientist, Finetune) - initially critical, slightly supportive of the final amended version
• Samuel Hammond (Senior Economist, Foundation for American Innovation) - initially attacked bill as too aggressive, evolved to seeing it as imperfect but worth passing despite being "toothless"
• Gabriel Weil (Assistant Professor of Law, Touro Law Center) - supported the bill overall, but still had criticisms (thought it did not go far enough)

Like Habryka I have questions about creating an additional project for EA-community choice, and how the two might intersect.

Note: In my case, I have technically finished the work I said I would do given my amount of funding, so marking the previous one as finished and creating a new one is possible.

I am thinking that maybe the EA-community choice description would be more about something with limited scope / requiring less funding, since the funds are capped at $200k total if I understand correctly.

It seems that the logical course of action is:

1. mark the old one as finished with an update
2. create an EA community choice project with a limited scope
3. whenever I'm done with the requirements from the EA community choice, create another general Manifund project

Though this would require creating two more projects down the road.

He cofounded Gray Swan (with Dan Hendrycks, among others)

I'm confused. On their about page, Dan is an advisor, not a founder.

ok I meant something like "people would could reach a lot of people (eg. roon's level, or even 10x less people than that) from tweeting only sensible arguments is small"

but I guess that don't invalidate what you're suggesting. if I understand correctly, you'd want LWers to just create a twitter account and debunk arguments by posting comments & occasionally doing community notes

that's a reasonable strategy, though the medium effort version would still require like 100 people spending sometimes 30 minutes writing good comments (let's say 10 minutes a day on average). I agree that this could make a difference. 

I guess the sheer volume of bad takes or people who like / retweet bad takes is such that even in the positive case that you get like 100 people who commit to debunking arguments, this would maybe add 10 comments to the most viral tweets (that get 100 comments, so 10%), and maybe 1-2 comments for the less popular tweets (but there's many more of them)

I think it's worth trying, and maybe there are some snowball / long-term effects to take into account. it's worth highlighting the cost of doing so as well (16h or productivity a day for 100 people doing it for 10m a day, at least, given there are extra costs to just opening the app). it's also worth highlighting that most people who would click on bad takes would already be polarized and i'm not sure if they would change their minds of good arguments (and instead would probably just reply negatively, because the true rejection is more something about political orientations, prior about AI risk, or things like that)

but again, worth trying, especially the low efforts versions

want to also stress that even though I presented a lot of counter-arguments in my other comment, I basically agree with Charbel-Raphaël that twitter as a way to cross-post is neglected and not costly

and i also agree that there's a 80/20 way of promoting safety that could be useful