Max Winger

For the majority of the general public, modern politics is essentially team sports, especially in the US.

When you take a stance on a partisan issue, you signal your allegiance to a team.

At best, the other team will just disregard you and click to the next post, but at worst they will associate AI risk concerns with your team and disregard the issue as a whole.

Rule of thumb, don't make arguments others can't repeat.

Figure out the best case anyone can make, and make it.

Posting off-topic political takes also provides dangerous ammunition to your opposition.

For example, imagine Steve did make his anti-worm post, and then later is trying to make inroads about AI risk with pro-worm political leaders.

The AI industry no longer has to fight him on AI risk.

Instead, they can just reference his antiworm beliefs as an outgroup signal and a reason to ignore him.

Even worse, if Steve is a leading figure talking about AI extinction risk, this same redirection attack can be used on others in AI safety.

Oh, you're just all antiwormers.

Look at Steve.

Communicating about AI extinction risk is interesting in part because it's a new topic for most people and not already correlated strongly with their pre-existing views.

Preventing the end of humanity is also just intrinsically non-partisan, and we should endeavor to keep it that way.

A very bad timeline is one where AI risk prevention becomes partisan.

Finally, as an AI expert, Steve isn't actually going to change the minds of any meaningful portion of his audience about the alpine worm scandal.

He'd have mistaken himself for an influencer, someone whose audience cares about his personal and political views, not just his specific area of expertise.

Audiences find it awkward when you're clearly stepping out of your lane, and they're already getting their worm takes from elsewhere anyway.

All of that downside, and for what?

Subheading.