How do I know whether my work is worth it?

I am working on a fairly large (or large-seeming to me) project in the AI space. I've been soft launching it for a little bit but I've been working on a hard announcement post for LessWrong, Substack, X, LinkedIn, etc. but basically it's a 60 player live event AI governance game combining the wargaming work of D. Scott Phoenix and Shahar Avin with the scaleability, easy mass distribution, and mechanical rigour of British-style Megagames. I wrote a post about this in April and I'm currently working off of a generous microgrant from BlueDot Impact. Facts about me: I'm extremely new to the world of AI safety, existential risk, and Rationality generally. I didn't know who "Scott Alexander" was in March and I didn't know what a "transformer architecture" was in July. I do not consider myself a hard R "Rationalist" yet (mostly due to not being caught up in the readings yet). I am absolutely not a shape rotator. I have a CS minor and essential programming skills but I am terrible at mathematics; I have no role to play in technical aligment. Six months ago I felt the biggest dangers of AI was the speculative bubble, data center power consumption, and the death of apprenticeship/the future of work. Since visiting Berkeley for Inkhaven 2 and becoming AGI-pilled I've been trying to map my skills (communication, content creation, design, a mind for systems, overall "generalist" skills) onto the AI problem and see whether there's anything I can do. My reasons for wanting to do something are probably multifaceted and not entirely altruistic. I am 24 years old and I'm not certain humanity will be around by the time I hit 40. I was at breakfast today with some colleagues (much more Rationalist/EA than myself) and I brought up the fact that I am working on this Megagame. I explained it a little bit. One of them said (in a very friendly, non-offensive, intellectually curious way) that he's not sure that such a project has any real value. I gave a bit of a rambly answer but I think I replied with the basic rhetoric of my BlueDot grant proposal. Something like: It seems like most AI wargames are inaccessible for most people, since you need to be connected to play them. It would be better if lots of people could step into the shoes of AI decision makers like great powers and AI labs. There are a lot of normies out there (like me, 6 months ago) who are thoughtful and worried about AI but simply don't understand the danger of AI-assisted human-induced catastrophe nor ASI-induced catastrophe. Certainly my hope is that this isn't just a game that gets played by AI doomers at AI doomer events. By exposing more normies to the difficult, conflicting incentives of AI governance in this period of rapid progress, maybe I will inspire smart/influential/dedicated people to doing important AI work. That seemed to satisfy him for the purposes of the casual conversation— he appreciated the value of good propaganda— but I've been pondering the merits my project since this morning. Clarification: I've already received the grant and I have started spending money to build, test, deliver, and report on the game by Christmas, so I'm locked into this. I'm not calling into question whether I should do what I promised to do. I'm just reflecting now whether my project is a good use of my time, BlueDot's money, and the attention of the AI scene/humanity at large. So all things considered, is what I'm doing actually worth it? How do I know? And if it's not, what should I do? Worry 1 - It's really hard for me to determine or prove impact The fantasy of my project is that people will walk away totally converted— epistemically baptised, as I was when @Sean Herrington showed me the METR Graph in April, into understanding that AI is extremely powerful and only getting more powerful. That's a really hard theory of impact to prove. Maybe it'll happen to 50% of the game's normie players. Maybe it'll happen to 1%. And every person whose mindset I change about AI governance and x-risk already has a very small probability of going on to be a major player in the AI world. How many philanthropic dollars should it cost to convert[1] someone? And if my game is an inefficient way to transform capital/normie attention into lower x-risk, how do I have any way of knowing that? Worry 2 - I'm making unproductive noise Human attention is the most valuable resource on the planet. I still believe that. And the amount of attention available, both within the AI space and in my target audience, is finite. If I run my game at some kind of gathering or event, is it really the optimal thing to be doing? Maybe it's more engaging than a 100 page report or a 2 hour lecture, but would the players be better served by something more informational and directly persuasive? After all, I'm not designing my game strictly as an academic simulation. I think my design is going to be rigorous, modelled after reality at least somewhat, but in many ways I am optimising my game around the edges t