Tldr: CeSIA successfully advised YouTubers, generating millions of views on AI safety (notably with one video which made 4M+ views). We seek funding for 1 FTE for 3-6 months to scale this content creator outreach and advisory model.

1. Problem

The general public and journalists increasingly turn to online sources for information about AI, yet face a scarcity of accessible, high-quality content explaining AI risks. The extremely rapid advances in AI technologies make it particularly difficult for the public to form opinions about risks based on reliable resources. Despite pockets of excellent resources (like Rob Miles, Kurzgesagt, Lethal intelligence, Rational Animation), significant gaps persist in broad public awareness. These quality resources are generally limited to isolated and already convinced audiences. This knowledge deficit is particularly concerning because informed public understanding of large-scale AI risks is essential for public support of informed policy decisions—an area that remains severely under-resourced.

2. Proposed solution

The political bottleneck for AI safety is not the production of knowledge about risks posed by AI to society—which is already plentiful—but rather the dissemination of this knowledge. It is extremely time-consuming and difficult for organizations producing knowledge on AI safety to build their own audience and achieve large-scale reach. Therefore, it is strategic for them to leverage existing platforms by connecting with quality content creators who already have millions of followers and enjoy trust from their audience.

We propose mobilizing the talent of influential content creators (YouTubers, podcasters, etc.) to produce and disseminate engaging, informative content on AI safety. The goal is to educate a broad audience through various formats and channels they already consult, by encouraging content creators to cover AI risks and AI safety, and by providing them with scientific consulting to ensure accuracy and depth. Trust is a key factor: audiences often exhibit high trust in creators they follow, potentially making them more receptive to messages delivered through these channels compared to direct institutional communication or advertising.

3. Track record & approach

Our initial efforts in France demonstrate the merits of this model. We collaborated/advised/gave interviews, which notably led to:

• Major success: Provided scientific consulting (approx. 20 hours involving fact-checking, argument refinement, suggesting angles) for a video by French YouTuber Ego, which garnered over 4 million views in its first months.

• Additionally, we advised IA Mania (approx. 10 hours), resulting in a video with 25k views. (This was our first try to advise youtubers, and at this point we were not aiming too high)

4. Two approaches

We see 2 complementary strategies:

1. Advisory & collaboration - our priority

   • Identify and contact influential creators (initially English and French-speaking, potentially expanding to other European languages).

   • Provide tailored scientific consulting, connecting creators with relevant experts from our network to improve script accuracy, depth, and argumentation. We could also facilitate connections with figures like Yoshua Bengio or Stuart Russell where appropriate.

   • Encourage diverse formats, prioritizing science communicators and creators with large, engaged audiences.

   • This model positions us strategically, avoiding the high costs of direct content production or sponsorship while potentially achieving greater reach than traditional academic outreach.

   • We are also going to try to do the 80/20 of reaching out to documentary agencies or other types of influencers on other social media platforms.

   • Our objective is to preserve the general tone and approach of the creators we contact, encouraging them to address risks in their own original way, while informing their content with the scientific knowledge we provide.

   • Estimated cost: Funding for 1 FTE for 3-6 months ($18k - $36k)

2. Direct sponsorships (probably not for this grant)

   • Directly fund production by major creators if appropriate, and if resources allow (similar to Open Philanthropy sponsoring Kurzgesagt).

   • Estimated cost: Variable and potentially high (€50k-€1M+), requiring dedicated funding.

5. Expected impact & Theory of change

Scaling potential: Our initial 100 hours yielded significant reach. With a dedicated 6-month FTE (~900 hours), we could scale this effort significantly. At a greater scale, we anticipate greater efficiency through refined processes, established contacts, better targeting, and leveraging the increasing public interest in AI.

Forecast (based on past conversion rates & creator audience sizes): For a 6-month FTE effort, we project the following potential reach within 12 months of content release:

• 50% chance of generating >2 Million cumulative views (the median)

• 25% chance of generating >4 Million cumulative views

• 10% chance of generating >10 Million cumulative views

• 1% chance of generating >50 Million cumulative views

These estimates are conservative and take into account the potential "luck factor" of Ego's considerable video success.

Cost-effectiveness:

As a datapoint: Open Philanthropy has been donating roughly $2M per year to Kurzgesagt, for an output of around 10 videos per year on EA related topics (very broadly defined), each of them making around 5M views on average. That amounts to $0.04 per view (assuming this budget indeed supported these specific videos, but we don’t have the exact details of this sponsorship).

Based on our projections, we expect our project to reach 2 million views over the next 12 months (median estimate), with an expected total around 3-4 million views when accounting for the possibility of much higher outcomes that pull the mean above the median.

With a budget of $36k, this amounts to $0.01 per view. This is four times lower than our estimate for the Kurzgesagt sponsorships. Although individual video production might differ from Kurzgesagt's high-budget style, this approach strategically prioritizes reaching a wider, more diverse audience, mitigating the audience concentration typically seen with single-channel sponsorships.

Second-order benefits:

• Spillover effects: Quality arguments entering the public debate can influence traditional media. Following the Ego video, we were contacted by TF1 (France's main TV channel) for an internal presentation and by a TV documentary production agency.

• Report & A/B testing: We plan systematic experimentation and reporting. We will test approaches with different creator types (e.g., science vs. commentary), messaging frames (e.g., technical vs. societal impact), and content formats (e.g., deep dives vs. short explainers) to identify what works best. We will track the number of collaborations established, analyse comments under the videos, track the media/influencer mentions generated (spillover), and finally will Report our findings from A/B testing.

6. Risks and mitigations

Fear mongering & paralysis: While raising concerns is clearly the objective, communication research suggests that fear appeals require careful handling, often needing strong efficacy messages (solutions or actions people can take) to avoid defensive reactions or paralysis. CeSIA's consulting will need to guide creators not just on the what (the risks) but also the how (the framing and tone) to maximize constructive impact. We have experience doing that, and we course corrected the video of Ego for example to avoid a message that would have been to doomy/paralysing.

Ego being an extreme feat of luck: While the Ego collaboration demonstrates feasibility, relying on landing such high-impact partnerships sporadically carries risk. However, successful YouTubers typically achieve highly predictable view counts in terms of orders of magnitude (for example, between 100k and 500k views for popular science communicators). This predictability provides a solid foundation for our outreach strategy. Sustaining a pipeline of collaborations will depend heavily on the FTE's networking skills. If one channel does not work, we will iterate until we are certain that the general approach is doomed. At least we will know. But for sure, we cannot guarantee the same degree of success; it's a bet.

Message quality, accuracy, and nuance: This reliance on third-party creators means that we relinquishe significant control over the final message and its framing. Communicating complex, nuanced, and sometimes contested topics like AI alignment, capabilities forecasting, and existential risk through third-party creators carries inherent risks of simplification or inaccuracy. Creators, even with guidance, may struggle to convey technical details correctly or may frame issues in ways that deviate from our intended message. We believe we managed this successfully with Ego. It was more challenging with IA Mania because before our collaboration, his videos had a more accelerationist tone, but we are quite satisfied with the final video we produced with him. So, while these risks exist, we have managed them well so far. We expect approximately 1 video out of 6 to fall below CeSIA's standards for discourse quality, but we need to accept this risk; if it becomes too problematic, we can be more selective in our future collaborations.

Ethical considerations: Providing significant expert consulting constitutes a "material connection" that necessitates disclosure under advertising standards prevalent in many regions (like the FTC guidelines in the US). Fortunately, we are offering our services pro-bono, and we aim to be transparent about our role in the creation of these videos. YouTubers have consistently treated us as expert friends and mentioned us in their video descriptions. We believe the risk in this area is minimal.

7. Initial request

We request funding for approach #1 (advisory & collaboration), as a pilot:

• Goal: Cover the cost of 1 FTE for 3 to 6 months.

• Activities: Initiate contacts (English/French), test and refine the scientific consulting model, evaluate scaling potential.

• Candidate profile: Requires strong communication skills, understanding of AI safety concepts (or ability to learn quickly), project management capabilities, and ideally experience with online media/creators. This person will be managed and mentored by experienced CeSIA staff.

• Budget:

  • Minimum (3 months FTE): $18,000 (less ideal due to ramp-up time)

  • Target (6 months FTE): $36,000 (allows for significant testing and impact)

This initial phase will provide crucial data to determine the feasibility and optimal strategy for a larger-scale, long-term effort.