I think I basically agree here, and I think it’s mostly about a balance; criticism should, I think, be seen as pulling in a direction rather than wanting to go all the way to an extreme (although there definitely are people who want that extreme who I strongly disagree with!)
On AI safety, I think in a few years it will look like EA overinvested in the wrong approaches (ie helping OpenAI and not opposing capabilities).
I think I agree the post sees voting/epistemic democracy in a too rosy eyed way. On the other hand, I am aware of being told by a philosopher of science I know that xrisk was the most hierarchical field they’d seen. Moreover, I think democracy can come in gradations, and I don’t think ea will ever be perfect.
On your thing of youth, I think that’s interesting. I’m not sure the current culture would necessarily allow this though, with many critical EAs I know essentially scared to share criticism, or having had themselves sidelined by people with more power who disagree, or had the credit for their achievements taken by people more senior making it harder for them to have legitimacy to push for change etc. This is why I like the cultural points this post makes, as it does seem we need a better culture to achieve our ideals
“On AI safety, I think in a few years it will look like EA overinvested in the wrong approaches (ie helping OpenAI and not opposing capabilities)”—I agree that this was a mistake.
“I’m not sure the current culture would necessarily allow this though, with many critical EAs I know essentially scared to share criticism”—that’s worrying. Hopefully seeing this post be highly upvoted makes people feel less scared.
I think I basically agree here, and I think it’s mostly about a balance; criticism should, I think, be seen as pulling in a direction rather than wanting to go all the way to an extreme (although there definitely are people who want that extreme who I strongly disagree with!) On AI safety, I think in a few years it will look like EA overinvested in the wrong approaches (ie helping OpenAI and not opposing capabilities). I think I agree the post sees voting/epistemic democracy in a too rosy eyed way. On the other hand, I am aware of being told by a philosopher of science I know that xrisk was the most hierarchical field they’d seen. Moreover, I think democracy can come in gradations, and I don’t think ea will ever be perfect. On your thing of youth, I think that’s interesting. I’m not sure the current culture would necessarily allow this though, with many critical EAs I know essentially scared to share criticism, or having had themselves sidelined by people with more power who disagree, or had the credit for their achievements taken by people more senior making it harder for them to have legitimacy to push for change etc. This is why I like the cultural points this post makes, as it does seem we need a better culture to achieve our ideals
“On AI safety, I think in a few years it will look like EA overinvested in the wrong approaches (ie helping OpenAI and not opposing capabilities)”—I agree that this was a mistake.
“I’m not sure the current culture would necessarily allow this though, with many critical EAs I know essentially scared to share criticism”—that’s worrying. Hopefully seeing this post be highly upvoted makes people feel less scared.