What does DC need to understand about Berkeley rationalists? (Panel Discussion)

If your impression of rationalists is “smart, earnest...and very fucking weird” - perhaps with a touch of the ’tism -this panel is for you.

We talk as though you've also read the same ten years of blog posts (you haven't???) Someone challenges a senior person in front of the room and seems surprised that it landed badly. (Oops.) Is that a missed social cue, a rejection of hierarchy, or the assumption that everyone came to figure out what’s true?

And if someone literally believes AI could kill everyone, how does that change their patience for political caution, incremental progress, or tracking unwritten rules?

How does this worldview make sense from the inside?

We’ll discuss why some rationalists resist becoming more politically presentable (starting with the necktie), what they think they’d lose by fitting in, and why we are (at times) so politically oblivious and disagreeable.

But also: how our epistemics helped us take AI risk seriously 20 years ago, how our predictions have tracked AI progress so closely, and what happens when you combine deep curiosity with taking ideas seriously.

Bring your raw questions. We precommit to taking them in good faith.