[version_five]

I think I mostly agree, but what kind of credentials or track record would be automatically credible in "AI safety". There are conflicting views and not an agreed upon body of practice for what it means, so yes there are charlatans but also just different viewpoints. Arguable the charlatans stick to some of the more mainstream stuff (if your model passes a "bias" test it's good to go). Whether someone is good or bad at AI safety is still much more of a holistic assessment. Whereas in established industries it would be obvious.