Part of the reason I think it was worth Ben/Lightcone prioritizing this investigation is as a retro-active version of “evaluations.”
Like, it is pretty expensive to “vet” things.
But, if your org has practices that lead to people getting hurt (whether intentionally or not), and it’s reasonably likely that those will eventually come to light, orgs are more likely to proactively put more effort into avoiding this sort of outcome.
That sounds a lot like what I picture as an “evaluation”?
I agree that spending time on evaluations/investigations like this is valuable.
Generally, I agree that—the more (competent) evaluations/investigations are done, the less orgs will feel incentivized to do things that would look bad if revealed.
(I think we mainly agree, it’s just terminology here)
Part of the reason I think it was worth Ben/Lightcone prioritizing this investigation is as a retro-active version of “evaluations.”
Like, it is pretty expensive to “vet” things.
But, if your org has practices that lead to people getting hurt (whether intentionally or not), and it’s reasonably likely that those will eventually come to light, orgs are more likely to proactively put more effort into avoiding this sort of outcome.
That sounds a lot like what I picture as an “evaluation”?
I agree that spending time on evaluations/investigations like this is valuable.
Generally, I agree that—the more (competent) evaluations/investigations are done, the less orgs will feel incentivized to do things that would look bad if revealed.
(I think we mainly agree, it’s just terminology here)