To be an e/acc means that, at the time of appointment to a leading AI policy role, the person has described themself in the past as an e/acc and not renounced or walked the term back.
An “important AI policy role for the White House” means any major official executive branch leadership position, or newsworthy advisory or policy drafting capacity, related to artificial intelligence (e.g. domestic regulations, research funding, government adoption, international negotiations, drafting executive orders).
For example, the following offices/titles would count:
Director of the AI Safety Institute
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
DoD’s Chief or Deputy Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Officer
Secretary of Commerce
Special Advisor on AI (e.g. like Ben Buchanan)
anyone reported as having helped draft an AI policy executive order (e.g. like how Bruce Reed was reported as having done)
Update 2024-23-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - For a role to be considered important, the person must either be:
Directly advising the President
Actively drafting policy
Making news coverage
Serving as one of the only/major AI-specific advisors
Being one of many advisors (e.g., similar to NAIAC members) would not qualify as important
1,000
3.00Sriram Krishnan of a16z will serve in the new Trump administration as Senior Policy Advisor for Artificial Intelligence at the White House OSTP, and appears to be e/acc. If so, I think market should resolve YES.
https://x.com/sriramk/status/1870955225978384509?s=46
@CharlesFoster That third post, the one where he responded to an e/acc leader who lamented “No e/acc's were invited to Davos and yet there will be many EAs and Decels there. Curious!” by replying “I’ll be at Davos. Will plant the e/acc flag!” is the clearest cut example, in my opinion.
@CharlesFoster Thanks for the links!
Only concern is whether Krishnan meets the "important"/"major" part of the criteria.
To qualify the person must self-describe as an e/acc. The third Tweet is sufficient, especially in the wider context you identify.
The role the person occupies must be official and about AI. Both are cleared by the nomination to Senior Policy Advisor on AI at OSTP.
The role must also be important. Advisors who aren't directly advising the President may or may not be important, so I may want to wait until after the appointment to resolve YES to see if Krishnan indeed turns out to be drafting policy, making the news, or serving as one of the only/major AI-specific advisors. For example, if Krishnan is roughly as important as everyone else on the NAIAC, then I'd lean to not counting him.
@cash That is fair. Let’s wait a bit and see. I think it may not be super clear how “important” any given advisor is but maybe I’m wrong about that.