On revolutionary love in AI safety

An application response I wrote! Feel free to leave feedback!What do you think is the most important lever for making AI go well for humanity?"'Revolutionary love' is the choice to labor for others, for our opponents, and for ourselves in order to transform the world around us" (Revolutionary Love Project).At the Blue Dot Impact panel "AI Safety Needs Generalists — Here's How to Get In", held on May 22, 2026, there were an array of mixed emotions expressed by the attendees (and, I'd assume, the panelists, too). As one can probably infer from the title, the panelists explained the urgent capacity bottlenecks that the field of AI safety is experiencing in terms of talent and organising capacity, and proposed some limited number of opportunities for people to apply to so that they can compete to fill that gap. Expectedly, some attendees, especially many of those who'd been recently rejected from the inaugural class of the generalist-focused Generator Residency, were getting somewhat frustrated at these sentiments in the Zoom chat due to the apparent contradiction: how can AI safety recruiters claim to be so strapped for talent, and yet be seemingly hyperselective about who they let onto their teams? Particularly as many of the attendees were mid-career professionals attempting to pivot into AI safety, initial answers about showcasing previous cause-related work also didn't seem exactly helpful. Panelists proceeded to give suggestions about producing legible output as opposed to "LinkedIn slop" and demonstrating value and truth alignment (i.e. recognising that X-risk is real rather than believe "cope" that it will probably be solved somehow). However, although I didn't personally comment in the chat, I (and I'm sure many others) noticed that these answers didn't actually solve the problem. They were tips on how to distinguish yourself from other applicants to the position you want — helpful tips, sure, but they didn't answer why the position is so selective in the first