LongtermWiki Strategy Brainstorm

LongtermWiki Strategy Brainstorm

Status: Working document, not polished Purpose: Think through what could go wrong and what success looks like

The Core Strategic Question

What is LongtermWiki actually trying to be?

flowchart TD
    subgraph Options["Strategic Options"]
        A[Insight Generator]
        B[Reference Wiki]
        C[Decision Support Tool]
        D[Crux Mapping Platform]
        E[Synthesis Engine]
    end

    A --> A1[High variance, might produce nothing useful]
    B --> B1[Commodity, already exists in various forms]
    C --> C1[Needs clear users with clear decisions]
    D --> D1[Novel but unproven value]
    E --> E1[Labor-intensive, hard to maintain]

These aren't mutually exclusive, but they have very different implications for what we build and how we measure success.

Failure Modes

Failure Mode 1: "Just Another Wiki"

The fear: We build a comprehensive knowledge base that nobody uses because:

• It's not differentiated from LessWrong, Wikipedia, 80K, etc.
• Maintenance burden exceeds our capacity
• Information gets stale and trust erodes
• No clear "job to be done" that it uniquely serves

Signs we're heading here:

• Low repeat visitors
• People cite primary sources instead of our pages
• "Oh yeah I've seen that site" but no behavior change
• Content quality diverges wildly across pages

Possible mitigations:

• Ruthless focus on a narrow use case
• Quality over quantity (30 great pages > 300 mediocre ones)
• Opinionated curation (not neutral, not comprehensive)
• Clear "this is what LongtermWiki is for" positioning

Failure Mode 2: "Insights That Aren't"

The fear: We try to generate novel strategic insights but:

• We're not actually smarter than the existing field
• "Insights" are obvious to experts, only novel to us
• Analysis is shallow because we're spread too thin
• We mistake complexity for depth

Signs we're heading here:

• Experts are unimpressed or dismissive
• Our "insights" don't survive contact with counterarguments
• We can't point to decisions that changed because of our work
• Internal feeling of "are we just rearranging deck chairs?"

Possible mitigations:

• Tight feedback loops with sophisticated users
• Explicit "what would falsify this?" for our claims
• Hire/consult people who can actually do the analysis
• Focus on synthesis and structure rather than novel claims

Failure Mode 3: "Cathedral in the Desert"

The fear: We build something beautiful and comprehensive that nobody asked for:

• Solves a problem that isn't actually a bottleneck
• Users don't have the "job to be done" we imagined
• The people who need prioritization help aren't reading documents
• Decision-makers use networks and calls, not wikis

Signs we're heading here:

• We can't name 10 specific people who would use this weekly
• User research reveals different pain points than we assumed
• "This is cool but I wouldn't actually use it"
• Building for an imagined user rather than real ones

Possible mitigations:

• User research before building
• Start with a specific user and their specific workflow
• Build minimum viable versions and test
• Be willing to pivot or kill the project

Failure Mode 4: "Maintenance Hell"

The fear: Initial build is fine but ongoing maintenance is unsustainable:

• Content rots faster than we can update it
• Quality degrades as original authors leave
• Scope creep makes everything shallow
• Becomes a zombie project that's "still around" but not useful

Signs we're heading here:

• Growing backlog of "needs review" pages
• Key pages haven't been touched in 6+ months
• New content added but old content not maintained
• Feeling of dread when thinking about updates

Possible mitigations:

• Scope down aggressively from the start
• Build staleness into the UX (visible "last reviewed" dates)
• Automated content health monitoring
• Plan for graceful degradation or archiving

Failure Mode 5: "Too Weird to Adopt"

The fear: The crux-mapping / worldview-mapping approach is too unusual:

• Users don't understand how to use it
• Requires too much buy-in to a novel framework
• Experts don't want to be "mapped" onto worldview archetypes
• The structure imposes false precision on messy disagreements

Signs we're heading here:

• People engage with the wiki content, ignore the crux structure
• Pushback on worldview categories ("that's not what I believe")
• The novel features feel gimmicky
• Simpler alternatives would serve users better

Possible mitigations:

• Test the framework with real users before building
• Make novel features optional/progressive disclosure
• Be willing to drop features that don't work
• Start simple, add complexity only if earned

What Does "Useful" Mean?

This is the crux. Different definitions lead to very different projects:

Definition A: Changes Decisions

Test: Can we point to funding decisions, research directions, or career choices that changed because of LongtermWiki?

Implications:

• Need to be embedded in actual decision-making workflows
• Probably need direct relationships with funders/researchers
• Quality of analysis matters more than breadth
• Might only need to serve a small number of users well

Concerns:

• Very high bar
• Attribution is hard
• Might be serving decisions that would have happened anyway

Definition B: Improves Understanding

Test: Do users report that they understand AI safety landscape better after using LongtermWiki?

Implications:

• Educational value is primary
• Breadth and accessibility matter
• Competes with AI Safety Fundamentals, 80K, etc.
• Success = people recommend it to newcomers

Concerns:

• Lots of competition in this space
• "Understanding" doesn't necessarily lead to better decisions
• Risk of being a stepping stone people quickly move past

Definition C: Structures Discourse

Test: Do people use LongtermWiki's categories and cruxes when discussing AI safety strategy?

Implications:

• The framework itself is the product
• Success = LongtermWiki vocabulary becomes common
• Focus on crux definitions, worldview archetypes
• Less about content, more about structure

Concerns:

• Very hard to achieve
• Might impose bad structure on good discourse
• Requires significant field buy-in

Definition D: Surfaces Disagreements

Test: Do we help people identify where they disagree and why?

Implications:

• Disagreement mapping is primary
• Need to represent multiple perspectives fairly
• Value = reducing "talking past each other"
• Could be more interactive/tool-like

Concerns:

• Might reify disagreements instead of resolving them
• Hard to represent views fairly (everyone will object)
• Unclear who the user is

Definition E: Generates Insights

Test: Do we produce novel strategic insights that weren't obvious before?

Implications:

• We're doing original analysis
• Quality of thinking matters most
• Might look more like reports than wiki
• Success = "I hadn't thought of it that way"

Concerns:

• Are we actually capable of this?
• Might be better done by existing researchers
• High variance in outcomes

Strategic Options

Option 1: Narrow & Deep

Focus on one very specific use case and nail it.

Example: "LongtermWiki helps funders compare interventions under different worldviews"

• 30-50 intervention pages, deeply analyzed
• Clear worldview → priority tool
• Explicit targeting of Open Phil, SFF, smaller funders
• Success = funders actually reference it in decision memos

Pros: Clear focus, measurable success, defensible niche Cons: Small user base, high stakes per user, might not be what funders want

Option 2: Broad & Shallow (Quality Wiki)

Comprehensive reference that's clearly better than alternatives.

Example: "LongtermWiki is the best single source for 'what is X in AI safety?'"

• 200+ pages, all at consistent quality
• Good SEO, clear navigation
• First stop for researchers, journalists, newcomers
• Success = high traffic, people link to us

Pros: Clear value prop, measurable, scales well Cons: Maintenance burden, commodity competition, doesn't leverage our unique angle

Option 3: Opinionated Synthesis

Not neutral, not comprehensive — actively opinionated about what matters.

Example: "LongtermWiki is where you go to understand the strategic landscape according to [specific perspective]"

• Explicitly represents a worldview or analytical lens
• Quality of argument matters more than coverage
• More like a think tank than a wiki
• Success = "LongtermWiki's take on X" becomes a reference point

Pros: Differentiated, lower maintenance, can be higher quality per page Cons: Alienates those who disagree, requires us to actually have good takes, might be seen as biased

Option 4: Crux Laboratory

Focus almost entirely on the crux-mapping innovation.

Example: "LongtermWiki maps the key uncertainties in AI safety and what would resolve them"

• Minimal wiki content, max crux structure
• Interactive disagreement exploration tools
• Integrate with prediction markets, expert surveys
• Success = cruxes get referenced, forecasts get made

Pros: Novel, potentially high-impact, differentiated Cons: Unproven value, might be too weird, hard to measure success

Option 5: Living Strategic Assessment

Regular, updating analysis of AI safety landscape.

Example: "LongtermWiki provides quarterly strategic assessments of the AI safety field"

• More report-like than wiki-like
• Regular update cadence with clear "what changed"
• Track predictions, update estimates
• Success = people read the quarterly updates, cite trends

Pros: Clear rhythm, natural freshness, can be event-driven Cons: High ongoing effort, journalism-like, competes with newsletters

Key Uncertainties About Our Own Strategy

Uncertainty 1: Who is the user?

How to resolve: Actually talk to potential users.

Uncertainty 2: Are we capable of generating insights?

Honest assessment: Do we have the expertise to say things that aren't obvious to field insiders?

• If yes → lean into analysis and synthesis
• If no → lean into curation and structure

How to resolve: Try it with a few topics and get expert feedback.

Uncertainty 3: Is the crux-mapping frame valuable?

The LongtermWiki vision heavily features worldviews, cruxes, disagreement mapping. Is this actually useful or is it an intellectual hobby?

• If useful → it's our core differentiator
• If not → we're just a wiki with extra steps

How to resolve: Prototype the crux interface, test with users.

Uncertainty 4: Can we maintain this?

2 person-years builds it. What maintains it?

• Ongoing funding?
• Community contribution?
• AI assistance?
• Graceful archiving?

How to resolve: Plan for maintenance from day 1, or plan for finite lifespan.

Possible Validation Approaches

Before going all-in, we could test key assumptions:

Test 1: User Interviews (2 weeks)

Talk to 10-15 potential users:

• Funders, researchers, policy people
• "How do you currently make prioritization decisions?"
• "What information do you wish you had?"
• "Would you use X if it existed?"

Test 2: Crux Prototype (2 weeks)

Build a minimal crux-mapping interface for 3-5 cruxes:

• Show to experts, get feedback
• "Does this capture the disagreement?"
• "Would you use this?"

Test 3: Page Quality Test (2 weeks)

Write 5 pages at our target quality level:

• Show to potential users
• "Is this useful? Better than alternatives?"
• "What's missing?"

Test 4: Insight Generation Test (2 weeks)

Try to generate 3 novel strategic insights:

• Write them up
• Share with experts
• "Is this valuable? Novel? Correct?"

My Current Intuitions (To Be Challenged)

1. The wiki is necessary but not sufficient. We need good reference content, but that alone won't differentiate us.

2. The crux-mapping is our unique angle but it's also the riskiest part. Need to validate it works.

3. Narrow is safer than broad. Better to serve 50 users very well than 500 users poorly.

4. We should pick a user and work backwards. Abstract "field building" goals are too vague.

5. Maintenance is the hard part. Initial build is straightforward; sustainability is the real challenge.

6. We might be solving a problem that isn't actually a bottleneck. Need to validate that prioritization confusion is actually causing suboptimal resource allocation.

Open Questions for Discussion

1. Who are 10 specific people who would use this weekly? Can we name them?

2. What's the simplest version of LongtermWiki that would still be valuable?

3. If we could only do one of (wiki, crux map, worldview tool), which?

4. What would make us confident this is worth 2 person-years vs. not?

5. Are there existing projects we should join/support rather than build?

6. What's the "failure mode" that would make us kill the project?

7. How do we avoid this becoming a self-justifying project that continues because it exists?

Next Steps

• Schedule user interviews with 5-10 potential users
• Define "minimum viable LongtermWiki" that could be tested in 4 weeks
• Identify 3 specific cruxes to prototype mapping
• Honest assessment: do we have the expertise for Option 3 (Opinionated Synthesis)?
• Research what happened to similar past projects