Thanks - FYI, I see: Sorry, the map could not be loaded. Please check the setup or contact support.

Thank you for this. Much appreciated.

I think you should make a new version of this for your website. You are now becoming more of a public figure, and better communicating your forecasting record will help make you, and outputs like AI 2027, more credible.

It's not my paper — I just wanted to share the link on LW as it seemed likely to be of interest to some people here. Thanks for the feedback, and sorry for the confusion!

In the future, there should be some organization or some group of individuals in the LW community who raise awareness about these sorts of opportunities and offer content and support to ensure submissions from the most knowledgeable and relevant actors. This seems like a very low-hanging fruit and is something several groups I know are doing.

As I understand it, there are several studies showing that it works for depression. Of course, it may be the case that this is only for people for whom anxiety caused the depression.

E.g., 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26718792/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9958187/#:~:text=After%2010%2Dweek%20treatment%2C%20patients,studies%3B%20p%20%3C%200.01). 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00406-024-01783-2 

I recommend anyone considering SSRIs to consider Silexan. See this write-up from Scott Alexander which covers the research. Someone I know has replaced their SSRI with Silexan. Several people I know have had good experiences. The main, and not always common, side effect is lavender flavored burps. Not everyone gets it. I don't, and it wasn't bad when I did. No-one I know has had a bad experience. Overall, the downside risk appears to be relatively low.

I also strongly endorse this based on my experience. I was a research consultant who created evidence summaries for decision makers in industry and government. This usually involved searching for published content. Anything that wasn't indexed by Google Scholar/publication repositories was almost always excluded. 

Yeah, I found this helpful. In general, I'd like to see more of these dialogues. I think that they do a good job of synthesing different arguments in an accessible way. I feel that's increasingly important as more arguments emerge.

As an aside, I like the way that the content goes from relatively accessible high level discussion and analogy into more specific technical detail. I think this makes it much more accessible to novice and non-technical readers.

[Reposting from a Facebook thread discussing the article because my thoughts may be of interest]

I woke to see this shared by Timnit Gebru on my Linkedin and getting 100s of engagements. https://twitter.com/xriskology/status/1642155518570512384

It draws a lot of attention to the airstrikes comment which is unfortunate.

Stressful to read

A quick comment on changes that I would probably make to the article:

Make the message less about EY so it is harder to attack the messenger and undermine the message.

Reference other supporting authorities and sources of evidence, so this seems like a more evidenced backed view point. Particularly more conventional ones because EY has no conventional credentials (AFAIK)

Make it clear that more and more people (ideally like/admired by the target audience, perhaps policymakers/civil servants in this case) are starting to worry about AI/act accordingly (leverage social proof/dynamic norms)

Make the post flow a little better to increase fluency and ease of understanding (hard to be precise about what to do here but I didn't think that it read as well as it could have)

Make the post more relatable by choosing examples that will be more familiar to relevant readers (e.g., not stockfish).

Don't mention the airstrikes - keep the call for action urgent and strong but vague so that you aren't vulnerable to people taking a quote out of context.

Finish with some sort of call to action or next steps for the people who were actually motivated.