Could this be an instance of the rationalist tendency to “decouple”?
From one perspective, Ben is simply “Sharing information about nonlinear.” What’s wrong with providing additional information? It’s even caveated with a description of one’s epistemic status and instruction on how to update accordingly! Why don’t we all have such a “low bar for publicly sharing critical info about folks in the EA/x-risk/rationalist/etc ecosystem”?
From another perspective, Ben has chosen to “search for negative information about the Nonlinear cofounders” and then—without inviting or even permitting the accused party to share their side of the story in advance—share it in a public space full of agents whose tendency to gossip is far stronger than their tendency to update in an appropriately Bayesian manner (i.e. human beings).
I suspect Ben does in fact have some understanding of the political dimension of his decision to share this post, but I think his behaviour is more understandable when you consider that he’s embedded in a culture that encourages people to ignore the political consequences of what they say.
without inviting or even permitting the accused party to share their side of the story in advance
You may have missed the section where I had a 3hr call with them and summarized what they told me? It’s not everything we’d want but I think this sentence is inaccurate.
I suspect Ben does in fact have some understanding of the political dimension of his decision to share this post
Of course I do! I thought about it a bunch and came to the conclusion that it’s best to share serious and credible accusations early and fast.
From another perspective, Ben has chosen to “search for negative information about the Nonlinear cofounders” and then—without inviting or even permitting the accused party to share their side of the story in advance—share it in a public space full of agents whose tendency to gossip is far stronger than their tendency to update in an appropriately Bayesian manner (i.e. human beings).
I’m confused—wouldn’t you consider the “Conversation with Nonlinear” section to be letting the accused party share their side of the story in advance?
Could this be an instance of the rationalist tendency to “decouple”?
From one perspective, Ben is simply “Sharing information about nonlinear.” What’s wrong with providing additional information? It’s even caveated with a description of one’s epistemic status and instruction on how to update accordingly! Why don’t we all have such a “low bar for publicly sharing critical info about folks in the EA/x-risk/rationalist/etc ecosystem”?
From another perspective, Ben has chosen to “search for negative information about the Nonlinear cofounders” and then—without inviting or even permitting the accused party to share their side of the story in advance—share it in a public space full of agents whose tendency to gossip is far stronger than their tendency to update in an appropriately Bayesian manner (i.e. human beings).
I suspect Ben does in fact have some understanding of the political dimension of his decision to share this post, but I think his behaviour is more understandable when you consider that he’s embedded in a culture that encourages people to ignore the political consequences of what they say.
You may have missed the section where I had a 3hr call with them and summarized what they told me? It’s not everything we’d want but I think this sentence is inaccurate.
Of course I do! I thought about it a bunch and came to the conclusion that it’s best to share serious and credible accusations early and fast.
I’m confused—wouldn’t you consider the “Conversation with Nonlinear” section to be letting the accused party share their side of the story in advance?