It’s worth noting that your current name has advantages too; people who are interested in the accelerating change singularity will naturally run into you guys. These are people, some pretty smart, who are at home with weird ideas and like thinking about the far future. Isn’t this how Louie found out about SI?
Maybe instead of changing your name, you could spin out yet another organization (with most of your current crew) to focus on AI risk, and leave the Singularity Institute as it is to sponsor the Singularity Summit and so on. My impression is that SI has a fairly high brand value, so I would think twice before discarding part of that. Additionally, I know at least one person assumed the Singularity Summit was all you guys did. So having the summit organized independently of the main AI risk thrust could be good.
I agree. You should change the name iff your current name-brand is irreparably damaged. Isn’t that an important decision procedure for org rebrands? I forget.
EDIT:
Unless, of course, the brand is already irreparably damaged...in which case this “advice” would be redundant!
It’s worth noting that your current name has advantages too; people who are interested in the accelerating change singularity will naturally run into you guys. These are people, some pretty smart, who are at home with weird ideas and like thinking about the far future. Isn’t this how Louie found out about SI?
Maybe instead of changing your name, you could spin out yet another organization (with most of your current crew) to focus on AI risk, and leave the Singularity Institute as it is to sponsor the Singularity Summit and so on. My impression is that SI has a fairly high brand value, so I would think twice before discarding part of that. Additionally, I know at least one person assumed the Singularity Summit was all you guys did. So having the summit organized independently of the main AI risk thrust could be good.
The spin-off sounds a little appealing to me too, but the problem is that the Summit provides a lot of their revenue.
Good point. Maybe this could continue to happen though with sufficiently clever lawyering.
I agree. You should change the name iff your current name-brand is irreparably damaged. Isn’t that an important decision procedure for org rebrands? I forget.
EDIT: Unless, of course, the brand is already irreparably damaged...in which case this “advice” would be redundant!