Hey! Thanks for the comment! 

You're right that we're open to a broad umbrella of potential residents. Our main criteria are that they take AI risk seriously, are genuinely considering pursuing generalist careers in AI safety, and perform well on the types of tasks that generalists need to do. This does make it a bit harder for any one applicant profile being a slam dunk acceptance, but the good news is that different people could be great fits. I'd love for you to encourage people from a variety of backgrounds to apply!

Our first cohort did skew young, but we're certainly excited about mid-career applicants. The mid-career residents from last cohort have done quite well at transitioning into the field! 

Thank you (both)!

It's been a while since, but from what I remember, my questions were generally in the same range as the framing highlighted by user seanrson's above! 
I've also heard objections from people who've felt that predictions about AGI from biological anchors don't understand the biology of a brain well enough to be making calculations. Ajeya herself even caveats "Technical advisor Paul Christiano originally proposed this way of thinking about brain computation; neither he nor I have a background in neuroscience and I have not attempted to talk to neuroscientists about this. To the extent that neuroscientists who talk about “brain computation” have a specific alternative definition of this in mind, this proposal may not line up well with their way of thinking about it; this might make it more hazardous to rely as much as I do on evidence Joe gathered from discussions with neuroscientists."