Ryan Kidd

Don't rule technical research out because it is like, especially if we have something like a regulatory market or even like warning shots to cause the public to wake up and tell Congress to regulate this stuff, right?

We have to have technical solutions ready to deploy.

to make these systems safer.

And the cheaper we make it to make systems that extra degree safer, to lower the alignment tax that companies have to pay to train and deploy their systems to be safer, the more likely they are to do it when they come under pressure, either internally, externally, or whatever.

So I think that lowering the alignment tax via technical research is super important still.

Also, if this alignment MVP plan is going to work, we have to have a bunch of directions for things to be iterated on by these AI assistants or humans calling teams of AI assistants as it's more likely to be.

And you actually have this massive interplay between technical research and governance research where things like evals and safety cases built on technical AI safety solutions are things that can actually be tangibly put forward in policy proposals, right?

And can convince policymakers of demos and evals and model organism honeypot traps, right?

Where AI systems deceive the users or whatever.

This is what convinces policymakers to make policy and

gives them a tangible target for their policy to work on, right?

So there's a clear flywheel here.

So I would say like, do not rule out technical research.

And there is a reason why Matt says so many more technical mentors.

And that's just because it seems like on the whole, our mentor selection committee thinks that, you know, I guess on average, a technical portfolio is worth pursuing.

Yeah.

So we are a 501 C three.

So we have to kind of, we have to keep our adverse advocacy and stuff to a minimum.

And I think Matt's a lot of massive strength is this, this kind of impartial player.

Like we're trying to be somewhat of a research university tech accelerator kind of vibe.