This is a special post for quick takes by Ulrik Horn. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
The electric grid is a powerful, current AI safety policy opportunity. ~25% of the cost of data centres is electricity and the electric grid is heavily regulated across government agencies. In fact, the very reason why many people claim nuclear energy is over regulated is exactly why we might be able to regulate AI strongly via electric grid regulation. This means "the grid" could be a strong contender for a space to make rapid and robust progress on AI safety policy. As an expert in the electric grid with a strong interest in AI safety and resilience, I see an electricity sector full of opportunities for quick wins and actually moving the needle. While "high-level" policy interventions such as SB 53 are important, a drawback of these types of policy interventions is twofold:
1 - They attract enormous public scrutiny. Electric regulation, on the other hand, hardly make it into local newspapers or industry press even.
2 - They don't really move the needle. They are more aspirational and rely on outcomes in court cases, enforcement, etc. The electric grid already has "kill switches" installed and integration with national security.
On the other hand, in the electric grid, one can plausibly pass very strong regulation with physical, actual AI safety levers. Some examples:
A - Large consumers of electricity are critical to the grid. It is not unforeseeable at all that gov't bodies could require a "kill switch" for data centres, not because of AI safety but due to grid health.
B - The military is extremely focused on electrical grids. They are also a likely gov't body that would act quickly and decisively on perceived threats on the grid. They likely influence requirements for cyber security of the electrical grid. This can include monitoring of critical load (yes, data centres) and access to the above "kill switch".
These are just two of many ideas I have around making rapid, robust progress on AI safety via much less public scrutiny, and using existing pathways and gov't focus areas around electric grid management and national defense. I have many more ideas and many years of working in and following the industry as well as a large professional network if anyone wants to talk - please DM me!
Something I’ve noticed in dating apps that I think is actually useful for a majority of people: relying on incoming likes gives you much lower-quality matches. I’ve had >100 conversations and met ~5 people from my incoming likes. Nice people, but the chemistry just wasn’t there.
When I ignore all of that and only message profiles that feel genuinely high-potential to me, the matches are immediately better. Maybe 1 in 10 of my messages are responded to, but the funny thing is: it doesn’t feel like rejection at all. I forget the ones who don’t answer. The only things that stick are the good matches — and those almost always come from actively reaching out.
Example: someone had a line about valuing silence on their profile. I wrote “Silent first date?” and we actually did a totally mute first date. Super fun. That kind of thing has low probability of coming from passively waiting.
If you want better matches, volume and proactiveness matters. Don’t rely on who shows up — go after who you actually want.
1this is good advice for exactly 50% of the population, right? like, somebody needs to be reading the messages you are sending.
Haha fair — I wasn’t trying to overhaul the entire dating market with one LW shortform. I just noticed this helped a few people I know, so I figured I’d share it in case it resonates with others too.