I wanted to clarify and apologise for some things here (not all of these are criticisms you’ve specifically made, but this is the best place I can think of to respond to various criticisms that have been made):
This statement was drafted and originally intended to be a short quote that we could send to journalists if asked for comment. On reflection, I think that posting something written for that purpose on the Forum was the wrong way to communicate with the community and a mistake. I am glad that we posted something, because I think that it’s important for community members to hear that CEA cares about inclusion, and (along with legitimate criticism like yours) I’ve heard from many community members who are glad we said something. But I wish that I had said something on the Forum with more precision and nuance, and will try to be better at this in future.
The first sentence was not meant to imply that we think that Bostrom disagrees with this view, but we can see why people would draw this implication. It’s included because we thought lots of people might get the impression from Bostrom’s email that EA is racist and I don’t want anyone — within or outside the community — to think that. Nevertheless this was sloppy, and is something that we should have caught when drafting it. Sorry.
We also intended the first sentence to have a meaning like Amber’s interpretation above, rather than the interpretation you had, but we agree that this is unclear. We’ve just edited the intro essay to make clearer that this is what we mean, and also to make clear that these principles are mostly more like “core hypotheses, but subject to revision” than “set in stone”.
This statement was intended as a reaction to Bostrom’s initial email (CW that this link includes a racial slur). I agree that if we had linked to that email it would have been clearer, and at the time I posted it I didn’t even consider that this might be ambiguous. Sorry.
More generally, we’re thinking about how we can improve our responses to situations like this in the future. I’m also planning to write up more about our overall approach to comms (TL;DR is that I agree with various concerns that have been raised about CEA and others in the community caring too much about PR concerns; I think truthfully saying what you believe — carefully and with compassion — is almost always more important than anything else), but it might be a little while before I get round to that.
I agree with various concerns that have been raised about CEA and others in the community caring too much about PR concerns; I think truthfully saying what you believe — carefully and with compassion — is almost always more important than anything else
CEA’s current media policy forbids employees from commenting on controversial issues without permission from leaders (including you). Does the view you express here mean you disagree with this policy? At present it seems that you have had the right to shoot from the hip with your personal opinions but ordinary CEA employees do not.
Sorry for the slow response.
I wanted to clarify and apologise for some things here (not all of these are criticisms you’ve specifically made, but this is the best place I can think of to respond to various criticisms that have been made):
This statement was drafted and originally intended to be a short quote that we could send to journalists if asked for comment. On reflection, I think that posting something written for that purpose on the Forum was the wrong way to communicate with the community and a mistake. I am glad that we posted something, because I think that it’s important for community members to hear that CEA cares about inclusion, and (along with legitimate criticism like yours) I’ve heard from many community members who are glad we said something. But I wish that I had said something on the Forum with more precision and nuance, and will try to be better at this in future.
The first sentence was not meant to imply that we think that Bostrom disagrees with this view, but we can see why people would draw this implication. It’s included because we thought lots of people might get the impression from Bostrom’s email that EA is racist and I don’t want anyone — within or outside the community — to think that. Nevertheless this was sloppy, and is something that we should have caught when drafting it. Sorry.
We also intended the first sentence to have a meaning like Amber’s interpretation above, rather than the interpretation you had, but we agree that this is unclear. We’ve just edited the intro essay to make clearer that this is what we mean, and also to make clear that these principles are mostly more like “core hypotheses, but subject to revision” than “set in stone”.
This statement was intended as a reaction to Bostrom’s initial email (CW that this link includes a racial slur). I agree that if we had linked to that email it would have been clearer, and at the time I posted it I didn’t even consider that this might be ambiguous. Sorry.
More generally, we’re thinking about how we can improve our responses to situations like this in the future. I’m also planning to write up more about our overall approach to comms (TL;DR is that I agree with various concerns that have been raised about CEA and others in the community caring too much about PR concerns; I think truthfully saying what you believe — carefully and with compassion — is almost always more important than anything else), but it might be a little while before I get round to that.
I appreciate this
CEA’s current media policy forbids employees from commenting on controversial issues without permission from leaders (including you). Does the view you express here mean you disagree with this policy? At present it seems that you have had the right to shoot from the hip with your personal opinions but ordinary CEA employees do not.