Some thoughts: * The correct answer is clearly (c) - it depends on a bunch of factors. * My current guess is that it would make things worse (given likely values for the bunch of other factors) - basically for Richard's reasons. * Given [new potential-to-shift-motivation information/understanding], I expect there's a much higher chance that this substantially changes the direction of a not-yet-formed project, than a project already in motion. * Specifically: * Who gets picked to run such a project? If it's primarily a [let's beat China!] project, are the key people cautious and highly adaptable when it comes to top-level goals? Do they appoint deputies who're cautious and highly adaptable? * Here I note that the kind of 'caution' we'd need is [people who push effectively for the system to operate with caution]. Most people who want caution are more cautious. * How is the project structured? Will the structure be optimized for adaptability? For red-teaming of top-level goals? * Suppose that a mid-to-high-level participant receives information making the current top-level goals questionable - is the setup likely to reward them for pushing for changes? (noting that these are the kind of changes that were not expected to be needed when the project launched) * Which external advisors do leaders of the project develop relationships with? What would trigger these to change? * ... * I do think that it makes sense to aim for some centralized project - but only if it's the right kind. * I expect that almost all the directional influence is in [influence the initial conditions]. * For this reason, I expect [push for some kind of centralized project, and hope it changes later] is a bad idea. * I think [devote great effort to influencing the likely initial direction of any such future project] seems a great idea (so long as you're sufficiently enlightened about desirable initial directions, of course :)) * I'd note that [in