The categories of audience are too vague; my principal interest is in policymakers, so dedicate some time to analysis of (and by extension strategy for) this group.
This will require some consideration of how policy actually gets done. Big question, but I have a line of attack on that problem.
Be explicit about the rhetoric. This will provide the context for the strategy, a pattern people may mimic for future strategies, and as a nice bonus will serve as advocacy for the skillset. (Assuming it doesn’t suck)
What I expect to be able to come up with is a description of what kind of policymaker we want to convince, and a flexible plan of attack for identifying and then approaching ones who seem to fit that description. This stems from a hypothesis that policy change is accomplished by a small cadre of policymakers dedicated to the policy in question; and not accomplished by popularity, even among policymakers.
What exactly the dedicated cadre does is unclear to me, but my suspicion is that it mostly comes down to attention to detail and opportunism. Attention to detail because there are a lot of levels to making policy work that go beyond getting a bill passed, and only a dedicated person would be willing to invest that attention; opportunism because a dedicated cadre can rapidly deliver a finished product with most of the kinks worked out as soon as a window opens.
Rhetoric about AGI: Notes to self
Caught the aftermath of a contest for generating short, no-context arguments for why AGI matters. It appears there will be a long-form contest in the future; these are basically notes towards an entry.
The categories of audience are too vague; my principal interest is in policymakers, so dedicate some time to analysis of (and by extension strategy for) this group.
This will require some consideration of how policy actually gets done. Big question, but I have a line of attack on that problem.
Be explicit about the rhetoric. This will provide the context for the strategy, a pattern people may mimic for future strategies, and as a nice bonus will serve as advocacy for the skillset. (Assuming it doesn’t suck)
What I expect to be able to come up with is a description of what kind of policymaker we want to convince, and a flexible plan of attack for identifying and then approaching ones who seem to fit that description. This stems from a hypothesis that policy change is accomplished by a small cadre of policymakers dedicated to the policy in question; and not accomplished by popularity, even among policymakers.
What exactly the dedicated cadre does is unclear to me, but my suspicion is that it mostly comes down to attention to detail and opportunism. Attention to detail because there are a lot of levels to making policy work that go beyond getting a bill passed, and only a dedicated person would be willing to invest that attention; opportunism because a dedicated cadre can rapidly deliver a finished product with most of the kinks worked out as soon as a window opens.