I talked to some policy people, will talk to more; I slightly updated towards some things: e.g.,
it might be fine to talk about non-existential risks to get you into the room, and then talk about existential risks as well, though I think there’s space for very honest (though careful) communication;
people confirmed my uncertain assumptions that there might be downside risks of reaching out to policymakers (no matter whether you talk about x-risk or not). It’s dangerous to talk to them without having consulted with people with experience in policy and lawyers who specialise on that sort of stuff, and when talking to policymakers, it’s not great not to have someone with a huge experience talking to them together with you and controlling the situation. Other risks also exist (such as stepping on someone’s toes and ruining some efforts that would’ve succeeded otherwise, there are ways it might be dangerous to unilaterally reach policymakers without any coordination with other groups). I’ve been surprised how much of what I expected might become the case was confirmed by people in DC in the format of “Yep, [this very specific thing you said you’re worried about potentially happened] actually happened and led to [what I expected the consequences of that thing might be];
with a lot of policymakers, a better way to start the conversation is to have a proposed bill at hand and talk about it and justifications for it;
when policymakers react (even to the point of having meeting with you) to cold outreach, their interest in the issue and willingness to engage with it/understand it might be quite limited, and it might be a huge difference compared to having the same length meeting but after being introduced etc., though it’s not necessarily visible to people meeting policymakers (everyone tries to be nice, including for reasons like “this person might become important in the future”); a much better metric is how much of effort-consuming things they’re doing to help you; intros are not necessarily a good metric.
Also, got some updates on what are the mechanisms through which it might make sense to reach policymakers, what are the different categories of them and what sort of materials it makes sense to present to them; who to talk to; etc.
I talked to some policy people, will talk to more; I slightly updated towards some things: e.g.,
it might be fine to talk about non-existential risks to get you into the room, and then talk about existential risks as well, though I think there’s space for very honest (though careful) communication;
people confirmed my uncertain assumptions that there might be downside risks of reaching out to policymakers (no matter whether you talk about x-risk or not). It’s dangerous to talk to them without having consulted with people with experience in policy and lawyers who specialise on that sort of stuff, and when talking to policymakers, it’s not great not to have someone with a huge experience talking to them together with you and controlling the situation. Other risks also exist (such as stepping on someone’s toes and ruining some efforts that would’ve succeeded otherwise, there are ways it might be dangerous to unilaterally reach policymakers without any coordination with other groups). I’ve been surprised how much of what I expected might become the case was confirmed by people in DC in the format of “Yep, [this very specific thing you said you’re worried about potentially happened] actually happened and led to [what I expected the consequences of that thing might be];
with a lot of policymakers, a better way to start the conversation is to have a proposed bill at hand and talk about it and justifications for it;
when policymakers react (even to the point of having meeting with you) to cold outreach, their interest in the issue and willingness to engage with it/understand it might be quite limited, and it might be a huge difference compared to having the same length meeting but after being introduced etc., though it’s not necessarily visible to people meeting policymakers (everyone tries to be nice, including for reasons like “this person might become important in the future”); a much better metric is how much of effort-consuming things they’re doing to help you; intros are not necessarily a good metric.
Also, got some updates on what are the mechanisms through which it might make sense to reach policymakers, what are the different categories of them and what sort of materials it makes sense to present to them; who to talk to; etc.