As an academic from a different field, this is not a publication record that would be anywhere close to someone being "the leading academic on the issue of AI safety". It indicates that she has had been one of very many participants at two impactful papers (with zero indication of what her individual contribution was, with so many authors it might as well be being part of the funding organization), has done a few collaborations with strong researchers, and that her personal first-author or sole-author research is barely relevant.
Like, it's not a bad publication record, especially for a junior researcher (heck, her first participation in other people's papers is just in 2018 and her own work starts in 2021-2022, so she's effectively just getting started and may have many opportunities to prove herself in the future), it does indicate doing a couple years of research and might qualify for an okayish faculty job when (if?) she gets her PhD, but it's not also something indicating a senior researcher that's the pillar of anything and has had some impact - a grad student who's lucky to study in a strong leading researcher's lab and does some work on two of the advisor's papers might have a similar publication record already at their graduation before their career has even seriously started.
Many of her co-authors have significantly larger research impact and personal research (https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=VclFrJ8AAAAJ or https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=MbBntPgAAAAJ for example or https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=0-G2eiEAAAAJ) - which also raises a question of how much each co-author did in a two-author paper where the leading author is a strong researcher and the second author is a "Director of Strategy and Foundational Research Grants" i.e. getting money for that research, so labeling her as a leading researcher (much less the leading researcher) of some field seems misleading as the publication record would indicate that she's not even on the same level as they are.
And what happens when they read the articles and come to realize that you could give an average college freshman any of those subjects and they could produce a comparable paper in a few weeks' time with a full course load and a part time job? Seriously, I've never seen a more underwhelming set of articles on google scholar from a supposed "leading" expert in a field... and what's worse is that she wasn't even the lead writer on most of them.
Sounds like a made up position to me. Just another bureaucrat with a cool sounding name