We’re coming up on two weeks now since this post was published, with no substantive response from Nonlinear (other than this). I think it would be good to get an explicit timeline from Nonlinear on when we can expect to see their promised response. It’s reasonable to ask for folks to reserve judgement for a short time, but not indefinitely. @Kat Woods@Emerson Spartz
Another two weeks later, and with no response or acknowledgement from Nonlinear (or even a statement about when they plan to give a response), I’m personally updating moderately towards the view that Nonlinear’s communications around the initial release of this post were more about FUD/DARVO than honesty. I’ve also updated further towards the position that it was right for Ben to post when he did, and that delaying would have been playing into the hands of bad actors. These remain defeasible positions, but I’m not holding my breath.
Have no fear! We are responding. We’ve been working on this full time the entire time. We have over 200 pages written so far and are in the last stages of editing to the point where we’ll be able to get feedback from friends. We’re aiming to get this done in the next few weeks because we want to be working on things that actually help with AI. However, it’s a very large doc, it’s a hostile audience, it takes way more effort to debunk something than to say something, etc. Also, man, I really hate editing, so it’s a bit of a slog.
(Obviously didn’t mean to write over 200 pages. Just Ben accused us of a lot of things and we were writing in multiple documents, so didn’t see what had happened until it was too late 😛.)
Balanced against that, whatever you think about the events described, this is likely to have been a very difficult experience to go through in such a public way from their perspective—one of them described it in this thread as “the worst thing to ever happen to me”. That may have affected their ability to respond promptly.
My personal guess is that Kat and Emerson acted in ways that were significantly bad for the wellbeing of others. My guess is also that they did so in a manner that calls for them to take responsibility: to apologise, reflect on their behaviour, and work on changing both their environment and their approach to others to ensure this doesn’t happen again. I’d guess that they have committed a genuine wrongdoing.
I also think that Kat and Emerson are humans, and this must have been a deeply distressing experience for them. I think it’s possible to have an element of sympathy and understanding towards them, without this undermining our capacity to also be supportive of people who may have been hurt as a result of Kat and Emerson’s actions.
Showing this sort of support might require that we think about how to relate with Nonlinear in the future. It might require expressing support for those who suffered and recognising how horrible it must have been. It might require that we think less well of Kat and Emerson. But I don’t think it requires that we entirely forget that Kat and Emerson are humans with human emotions and that this must be pretty difficult.
Of course, if they don’t post a response, at a certain point people might decide they lack further energy to invest in this and might therefore update their views (while retaining some uncertainty) and not read further materials. This is a reasonable practical response that is protective of one’s own emotional resources.
But while making this practical decision based on personal wellbeing, I think it’s also possible to recognise that Kat and Emerson might not be in a place to respond as rapidly here as they might hope to (and as we might hope they would).
I’d also add that, were I to be offering advice to K & E, I’d probably advise taking more time. Reacting aggressively or defensively is all too human when facing the hurricane of a community’s public opinion—and that is probably not in anyone’s best interest. Taking the time to sit with the issues, and later respond more reflectively as you describe, seems advisable.
I think there are practical reasons why it might take longer to prepare a comprehensive public response than the private response they were envisaging for Ben + Lightcone. That said, I also think that there are a lot of non-comprehensive responses that would have taken less time to write while still supporting their version of events, and I think it’s reasonable to update against Nonlinear in their absence.
private response they were envisaging for Ben + Lightcone
Thanks for pointing this out! I had the impression they wanted time to prepare a public response that could go live contemporaneously with Ben’s post, but reading the comments from Kat and Emerson it looks like you’re right!
We’re coming up on two weeks now since this post was published, with no substantive response from Nonlinear (other than this). I think it would be good to get an explicit timeline from Nonlinear on when we can expect to see their promised response. It’s reasonable to ask for folks to reserve judgement for a short time, but not indefinitely. @Kat Woods @Emerson Spartz
Another two weeks later, and with no response or acknowledgement from Nonlinear (or even a statement about when they plan to give a response), I’m personally updating moderately towards the view that Nonlinear’s communications around the initial release of this post were more about FUD/DARVO than honesty. I’ve also updated further towards the position that it was right for Ben to post when he did, and that delaying would have been playing into the hands of bad actors. These remain defeasible positions, but I’m not holding my breath.
Have no fear! We are responding. We’ve been working on this full time the entire time. We have over 200 pages written so far and are in the last stages of editing to the point where we’ll be able to get feedback from friends. We’re aiming to get this done in the next few weeks because we want to be working on things that actually help with AI. However, it’s a very large doc, it’s a hostile audience, it takes way more effort to debunk something than to say something, etc. Also, man, I really hate editing, so it’s a bit of a slog.
(Obviously didn’t mean to write over 200 pages. Just Ben accused us of a lot of things and we were writing in multiple documents, so didn’t see what had happened until it was too late 😛.)
@Kat Woods and @Emerson Spartz, any update on this?
Still working on it full time! I’d guess we’ll publish in the next 1-4 weeks. I really hope it is sooner. I want to finish this more than anybody.
Sorry for it taking so long. This is the first time I’ve ever done crisis communication and if I had a time machine, I’d do things differently.
Notably, it’s now been about twice as long as Nonlinear says they originally requested Ben to give them to prepare their side of the story (a week).
Balanced against that, whatever you think about the events described, this is likely to have been a very difficult experience to go through in such a public way from their perspective—one of them described it in this thread as “the worst thing to ever happen to me”. That may have affected their ability to respond promptly.
Just want to signal my agreement with this.
My personal guess is that Kat and Emerson acted in ways that were significantly bad for the wellbeing of others. My guess is also that they did so in a manner that calls for them to take responsibility: to apologise, reflect on their behaviour, and work on changing both their environment and their approach to others to ensure this doesn’t happen again. I’d guess that they have committed a genuine wrongdoing.
I also think that Kat and Emerson are humans, and this must have been a deeply distressing experience for them. I think it’s possible to have an element of sympathy and understanding towards them, without this undermining our capacity to also be supportive of people who may have been hurt as a result of Kat and Emerson’s actions.
Showing this sort of support might require that we think about how to relate with Nonlinear in the future. It might require expressing support for those who suffered and recognising how horrible it must have been. It might require that we think less well of Kat and Emerson. But I don’t think it requires that we entirely forget that Kat and Emerson are humans with human emotions and that this must be pretty difficult.
Of course, if they don’t post a response, at a certain point people might decide they lack further energy to invest in this and might therefore update their views (while retaining some uncertainty) and not read further materials. This is a reasonable practical response that is protective of one’s own emotional resources.
But while making this practical decision based on personal wellbeing, I think it’s also possible to recognise that Kat and Emerson might not be in a place to respond as rapidly here as they might hope to (and as we might hope they would).
Stated more eloquently than I could have, SYA.
I’d also add that, were I to be offering advice to K & E, I’d probably advise taking more time. Reacting aggressively or defensively is all too human when facing the hurricane of a community’s public opinion—and that is probably not in anyone’s best interest. Taking the time to sit with the issues, and later respond more reflectively as you describe, seems advisable.
I think there are practical reasons why it might take longer to prepare a comprehensive public response than the private response they were envisaging for Ben + Lightcone. That said, I also think that there are a lot of non-comprehensive responses that would have taken less time to write while still supporting their version of events, and I think it’s reasonable to update against Nonlinear in their absence.
Thanks for pointing this out! I had the impression they wanted time to prepare a public response that could go live contemporaneously with Ben’s post, but reading the comments from Kat and Emerson it looks like you’re right!