I completely disagree. It will mobilize supporters, get to the news, and attract attention. The next march may attract 15k, the march after that 20k etc. 

Example: during the protests in Moscow, Russia in 2011 after the electoral frauds, the first big rally gathered 50k-100k. The second gathered 100k-200k, since people saw - it is totally fine to come to such rallies. 

To put in other words: if your goal is 100k march in Washington, DC, I think an intermediate 10k march in SF would increase the chances to achieve this goal.  

I think the number of people who would come to the march in their city on the weekend/evening of the work day is significantly higher than the number of people who would travel for it cross-country. 
I think 100k march would be a sign for policy makers and get to the news anyway, whether it in NYC, SF, Washington or in the middle of the desert. 
Also, IMO, it would make more sense to start with a lower threshold - 10k for example. 

I wish there were some discussion about the location. Why Washington DC? Aren't most AI Safety aligned people in the Bay Area and London (and a little bit in continental Europe)? If we want to get 100000 people ASAP I feel any of the following locations would be better than Washington, DC:
Bay Area - already a huge base of people to come, I bet you would get a few thousands registrations immediately
NYC - just a lot of people who may have read IABIED and get the message
London/European capital - in current situation, it is easier for American citizens to travel to Europe than the opposite

I see that in the very first post in this series, you write that you think that more children is good and then all the posts will be about how, not why. It would be nice if you give here a link to the very first post, and maybe briefly mention it as well.

I think more children as an abstract concept (spherical cow) is a good thing. But in the universe where the choice is between "more children" and "more immigration", it seems that the latter might be a better way. Of course, I am biased, since I am myself an immigrant. But it seems that immediately getting an educated young adult without spending money growing up the child, and maybe spending a little bit on their integration, can be a better choice. It's better for society. It is better for this immigrant. 

In a distant future (if without AGI), when the Earth population will start to decrease, we will need measures to support fertility. Now, I think, we need measures to support immigration. 
 

That one is interesting! Where do you take probabilities from?

Could you do it as a text post with short explanations of each?

I think yes, it would help to avoid confusion. 

Have a sufficient financial safety net

I think, this condition is important only if I am going to leave my full-time job and switch to unpaid  AI Safety projects. For some people (who have financial security), this may be the case. Many, including myself, do not have this security. It does not mean I can't do any projects until I get enough funds to survive. Rather, it means that I can do only part-time projects (for me, it was organising mentoring programs and leading AI Safety Camp project). Meanwhile, I still think applying to the roles that seem to be a good fit for me makes quite a lot of sense - I would rather spend 40 hours/week working on AI Safety than on a regular job. Maybe it should be something like 80% projects, 20% applying (the numbers are random). 


I feel that the percentage of people who can afford not to have paid work and only do AI Safety projects till AGI arrives is not that high. It would be nice to have also a strategy and recommendations, what a person can do for AI Safety with 10 hours/week, or 5, or even 1. I think the boundary where one can do something useful is quite low - even with 5 minutes/week they can e.g. repost stuff in social networks. 



 

1. The idea of total extinction might seem wild for non-nerds. Maybe it is good to start with small things:
   -the job you are doing will be done by AI 
   -whatever education you or your kids get in college, it won't give you a job
   -even if you are working on AI with AI you still can be replaced completely by AI
   
   This may at least make them to think more about impact on society and importance of the problem on the gut level, and from there we could go to more serious issues
2. I would say the nuclear war would be the least sci-fi scenario. Arm race leads to using AI everywhere to beat the opponent, including systems responsible for observing and responding to opponent's missile strikes, and then it goes rogue.
3. I think bioweapons can be persuasive.  We know that there are viruses like smallpox with very high lethality and very big virulence. Actually COVID and smallpox would be a good starting point for explanation. I would say something like: "Remember COVID spread everywhere despite all restrictions? Its incubation period was roughly 2 weeks. For smallpox, it can be like 40 days. It is incredibly viral.  In a modern world, in 40 days it will be everywhere, and then it is too late. Lethality rate 50-80%. And for smallpox we have a vaccine, that is why we are safe against a smallpox. AI already designs viruses and can easily be used to design something like smallpox, but for which this vaccine does not work".      

Thank you very much for catching the mistake! I checked, you are completely right.