Regarding articles which target a popular audience such as How AI Takeover Might Happen in 2 Years, I get the sense that people are preaching to the choir by posting here and on X. Is there any reason people aren't pitching pieces like this to prestige magazines like The Atlantic or wherever else? I feel like publishing in places like that is a better way to shift the elite discourse, assuming that's the objective. (Perhaps it's best to pitch to publications that people in the Trump admin read?)
I think the way the issue is framed matters a lot. If it's a "populist" framing ("elites are in it for themselves, they can't be trusted"), that frame seems to have resonated with a segment of the right lately. Climate change has a sanctimonious frame in American politics that conservatives hate.
2Seth Herd
Agreed, tone and framing are crucial. The populist framing might work for conservatives, but it will also set off the enemy rhetoric detectors among liberals. So coding it to either side is prone to backfire. Based on that logic, I'm leaning toward thinking that it needs to be framed to carefully avoid or walk the center line between the terms and framings of both sides.
It would be just as bad to have it polarized as conservative, right? Although we've got four years of conservatism, so it might be worth thinking seriously about whether that trade might be worth it. I'm not sure a liberal administration would undo restrictions on AI even if they had been conservative-coded...
Interesting. I'm feeling more like saying "the elites want to make AI that will make them rich while putting half the world out of a job". That's probably true as far as it goes, and it could be useful.