Redwood reframed: doing narrow safety work to buy odds, not solve AI safety broadly
austinc3301 · x · 2026-11-11
In a discussion with @mayarav, @benjtodd, @bshlgrs and @DKokotajlo, austinc3301 argues substantial technical AI safety work remains valuable even if takeoff starts in 2027. He reframes Redwood's mission: not "solving technical AI safety" broadly, but doing a narrow set of things that either improve the odds of the right kind of policy or of survival if policy fails.
Related event: Debate: Redwood Research Aims at Policy Leverage, Not Just Technical Safety(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Chess has 1000x human skill gaps; object detection doesn't—and that explains AI progress — anpaure · 2026-11-11
- Forward deployed engineer jobs up 361%, front-end down 51% in one year — lennysan · 2026-11-11
- AI safety now draws teen savants; practitioner argues against dropping out of college — austinc3301 · 2026-11-11
- "I asked for an AI to do my job—should've specified keeping me" — kuanhoong · 2026-11-11
- A safety-talent startup tried this and died on program length — austinc3301 · 2026-11-11
- Safety community's best spend: a 2-year institution teaching LLM internals — viemccoy · 2026-11-11