FYI: I’m working on a book about the threat of AGI/ASI for a general audience. I hope it will be of value to the cause and the community

This is a concern I take seriously. While it is possible increasing awareness of the problem of AI will make things worse overall, I think a more likely outcome is that it will be neutral to good. I will strive to do justice to the positions and concerns people in the community have (while understanding that there is disagreement within the community).

A few thoughts on this:

a) I expect that addressing public misconceptions about AGI would be good.
b) I think it's important to try to explain some of the challenges of policy action and why it's very hard to figure out policies that increase our chances of success^[1]. I'd also emphasise the importance of attempting to develop a nuanced understanding of these issues as opposed to other issues where it is easier to dive in and start doing things. In particular, I'd explain how certain actions have the potential to backfire, even if you don't think they actually would backfire. And I would consider mentioning the unilateralists curse and how producing low-quality content can cost us credibility.

I think it would be possible for this project to be net-positive, but you'd have to navigate these issues carefully.

1. ^{^}

   Even increasing research funding might not do any good if it mostly ends up elevating work that is a dead-end or otherwise dilutes those doing valuable work.

Yes, there are! Superintelligence, Human Compatible, Precipice, Alignment Problem, Life 3.0 etc. all provide high quality coverage in different ways. But most of them are not intended for a general audience.

The piece of writing that comes to my mind as currently being best for a general audience is Wait But Why's The AI Revolution. It's not a book though.

Nice! Feel free to use Stampy content, I hereby release you of the BY part of our copyright so you can use it without direct attribution. We're a project by Rob Miles's team working to create a single point of access for learning about alignment (basics, technical details, ecosystem, how to help, etc). By the time you publish we might be a good enough resource that you'll want to point your readers at us at the end of your book for further reading.

It seems like it could be worthwhile for you to contact someone in connection to AGI Safety Communications Initiative [EA · GW]. Or at the very least check out the post I linked.

This is a concern I take seriously. While it is possible increasing awareness of the problem of AI will make things worse overall, I think a more likely outcome is that it will be neutral to good.

Another consideration is how it may be a risk for long-termists to not pursue new ways of conveying the importance and challenge of ensuring human control of transformative AI. There is a certain principle of being cautious in EA. Yet in general we don't self-reflect enough to notice when being cautious by default is irrational on the margin. 

Recognizing the risks of acts of omission [EA · GW] is a habit William MacAskill has been trying to encourage and cultivate in the EA community during the last year. Yet it's been a principle we've acknowledged since the beginning. Consequentialism doesn't distinguish between action, and inaction, as a failure to take any appropriate, crucial or necessary action to prevent a negative outcome. Risk aversion is focused on in the LessWrong Sequences more than most cognitive biases.

It's now evident that past attempts at public communication about existential risks (x-risks) from AI have altogether proven to be neither sufficient nor adequate. It may not be a matter of not drawing more attention to the matter so much as drawing more of the right kind of attention. In other words, carefully conducing changes in how AI x-risks are perceived by various sections of the public is necessary. 

The way we together as a community help you ensure how you write the book strikes the right balance may be to keep doing what MacAskill recommends: 

• Stay in constant communication about our plans with others, inside and outside of the EA community, who have similar aims to do the most good they can
• Remember that, in the standard solution to the unilateralist’s dilemma, it’s the median view that’s the right (rather than the most optimistic or most pessimistic view)
• Are highly willing to course-correct in response to feedback

I would be interested in reading a draft and giving feedback (FYI I'm currently a researcher in the AI safety team at FHI). 

No offense, but It's not obvious to me why communicating to a general audience could be a net positive. Exactly how do you expect this to help?

I'd be happy to offer free editing services as my time allows, and maybe the research assistant role if you could describe what you need or anticipate needing a bit more. I have a BS in statistics and have worked in AI for a few years.