How might outsiders make things go well?

I've been thinking about the role of outsiders over the next decade as we transition to ASI. By "outsiders", I mean the AI safety community outside the frontier labs, plus some other actors trying to make things go well. This is in contrast to other groups like: (i) employees at the frontier labs ("insiders"), (ii) senior government officials and policymakers, and (iii) the general public.[1] My current views:Outsiders are a key component of things going well. In this article, I go through the main reasons I expect this (with some percentages representing the strengths of the reasons).There's a bunch of activities outsiders might be doing. We should maintain optionality over activities and be prepared to pivot quickly.The best prioritisation over these activities will depend on a rapidly evolving and unpredictable strategic landscape, e.g. "help a clueless US government understand the takeover risks from the current deployment", or "develop cheap techniques which can be exported to unreasonable labs", or "verify claims made by labs to a very clued-in international community".The current zeitgeist seems to be "general managers", i.e. orgs that focus on one topic. By topic, I mean things like "AI epistemics", "white-box control", "reward hacking". I think this is good, despite the need to pivot between activities, because you can pivot between activities while staying in the same topic. E.g. you can pivot between "developing training techniques for eliciting good advice from AIs" and "embarrass labs by publicising about low quality AI epistemics" and "help governments decide which AI model to use for strategic advice" etc.I'm excited about ensuring outsiders have access to resources — e.g. information, compute, funding, headcount, model access. This seems robust to different activities.I think outsiders should maintain a reputation for epistemic integrity, i.e. saying what we believe and why we believe it. This seems like an important asset in the most impactful activ