less_raichu

TL;DR: Voters are now surprisingly open to talking about existential risk from AI. This seems to have changed in the last 6 months. When campaigning for AI safety-friendly politicians (e.g., Alex Bores), we should talk more about AI in general, and about AI risk in particular. This is currently actionable for the CA-11 and NY-12 Democratic primaries. I include concrete advice to turn basic conversations during political canvassing into persuasive conversations centered on AI risk. Public opinion around AI has rapidly soured in the 12 months. According to a March 19-23 Quinnipiac poll, * 55% of Americans think AI will do "more harm than good", compared to 44% a year ago. * 70% of Gen Z Americans think AI will decrease job opportunities, up from 56% last year. * 65% of Americans oppose building a data center in their community. Anecdotally, I've noticed more willingness among non-AI-focused media to discuss widespread harm from AI. Most visibly, gradual disempowerment is a hot topic (NYT), and right-wing pundits like Steve Bannon have supported Anthropic's red-line against lethal autonomous weapons. Memorably, my cousin, a county commissioner in a rural area, has told me about farmers showing up at city council meetings, sending emails, and posting on Nextdoor in opposition to nearby data center construction. Turning this sentiment into constructive x-risk-reducing policy, as opposed to, for instance, ill-advised bans on AI in mental health, will likely be incredibly important. So, electing competent politicians friendly to x-risk seems like a very leveraged intervention. Since 2020, I've done ~160 hours of persuasion-focused canvassing for various campaigns. I live in NY-12, and so have spent around 5 shifts over the past month canvassing for Alex Bores. I'm pretty good at getting someone stopping to read my campaign flyers to chat a bit more, and have about 4-8 conversations per hour that I consider persuasive. By persuasive, I mean I'd predict they're at le