But 80k has featured various safety researchers working at AGI labs over the years. Eg. see OpenAI.
So it’s more like 80k has created free promotional content, and given their stamp of approval of working at AGI labs (of course ‘if you weigh up your options, and think it through rationally’ like your friends).
I agree that implies that those people are more inclined to spend the time to consider options. At least they like listening to other people give interesting opinions about the topic.
But we’re all just humans, interacting socially in a community. I think it’s good to stay humble about that.
If we’re not, then we make ourselves unable to identify and deal with any information cascades, peer proof, and/or peer group pressures that tend to form in communities.
If everyone I targeted with marketing initiatives listened to an entire 3 hour podcast my job (as a marketer) would be a lot easier.
Of 80k’s entire reach, I’d be surprised if 1% had listened to an entire 3 hour podcast in the last 6 months with a lab.
Most people will glance at their content and see that they’re “working together” (you can replace “working together” with “partnership” or whatever phrase you think is more accurate).
They do it with influencers, but not with labs. They partner with labs by promoting their initiatives, producing thought leaders within the labs, listing their jobs.
I don’t think it is fair to assume anything about my intentions without first asking—maybe you have a question about my intentions? I’m happy to answer any.
Am I right in saying that you think that me using the word “partnering” is inaccurate when when describing 80k listing jobs at labs, having people on their podcast to promote their initiatives and their people? etc
I’d be happy to use another word, as it doesn’t really change the substance of my claims.
I do think it’s inaccurate to say that 80k listing a job at an organisation indicates a partnership with them. Otherwise you’d have to say that 80k is partnering with e.g. the US, UK, Singapore and EU governments and the UN.
Re the podcast, I don’t think that’s the central purpose or effect. On the podcast homepage, the only lab employee in the highlighted episode section works on information security, and that is pitched as the focus of the episode.
I am disappointed at how soft-balled some of the podcast episodes have been, and I agree it’s plausible that for some guests it would be better if they weren’t interviewed, if that’s the trade-off. However I also think that overstating the case by describing it in a way that would give a mistaken impression to onlookers is unlikely to do anything to persuade 80k about it.
Organisations often partner together because they have overlapping audiences but separate products. Here is a dumb example https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/299503/nescafe-original-choc-mocha-tim-tam-coffee-sachets
Lol I know what a brand partnership is in general, but I’m not aware of 80k doing anything like that
They’re not quite doing a brand partnership.
But 80k has featured various safety researchers working at AGI labs over the years. Eg. see OpenAI.
So it’s more like 80k has created free promotional content, and given their stamp of approval of working at AGI labs (of course ‘if you weigh up your options, and think it through rationally’ like your friends).
I generally think people who listen to detail-focused 3 hour podcasts are the sorts of people who weigh up options
I agree that implies that those people are more inclined to spend the time to consider options. At least they like listening to other people give interesting opinions about the topic.
But we’re all just humans, interacting socially in a community. I think it’s good to stay humble about that.
If we’re not, then we make ourselves unable to identify and deal with any information cascades, peer proof, and/or peer group pressures that tend to form in communities.
If everyone I targeted with marketing initiatives listened to an entire 3 hour podcast my job (as a marketer) would be a lot easier.
Of 80k’s entire reach, I’d be surprised if 1% had listened to an entire 3 hour podcast in the last 6 months with a lab.
Most people will glance at their content and see that they’re “working together” (you can replace “working together” with “partnership” or whatever phrase you think is more accurate).
I still don’t see how that would be the conclusion people would draw
They do it with influencers, but not with labs. They partner with labs by promoting their initiatives, producing thought leaders within the labs, listing their jobs.
This seems like intentionally inflammatory concept creep to me
I don’t think it is fair to assume anything about my intentions without first asking—maybe you have a question about my intentions? I’m happy to answer any.
Am I right in saying that you think that me using the word “partnering” is inaccurate when when describing 80k listing jobs at labs, having people on their podcast to promote their initiatives and their people? etc
I’d be happy to use another word, as it doesn’t really change the substance of my claims.
I do think it’s inaccurate to say that 80k listing a job at an organisation indicates a partnership with them. Otherwise you’d have to say that 80k is partnering with e.g. the US, UK, Singapore and EU governments and the UN.
Re the podcast, I don’t think that’s the central purpose or effect. On the podcast homepage, the only lab employee in the highlighted episode section works on information security, and that is pitched as the focus of the episode.
I am disappointed at how soft-balled some of the podcast episodes have been, and I agree it’s plausible that for some guests it would be better if they weren’t interviewed, if that’s the trade-off. However I also think that overstating the case by describing it in a way that would give a mistaken impression to onlookers is unlikely to do anything to persuade 80k about it.
I’m not assuming anything—I’m stating how it appears to me (ie I said ‘this seems like X to me’, not ‘this is X’).