Where you’re making controversial arguments, you need to explain the evidence behind them in the text. Citations should be only for the extra diligent reader, it’s not fair to expect the reader to look into them.
Many of the citations like the one you mentioned now aren’t sufficient. From what I’ve seen, you’ve provided evidence that Leverage did cult-like things, and was involved in organizing EA conferences for a time and there was some overlap with staff. It’s a big jump to then say that EA was literally taken over by a cult and that this effect continues until today. Referring to one comment about the interview process for one fellowship is just so clearly not sufficient to color EA as a whole—not even for that fellowship, of which there are many!
Control AI is related to EA, clearly. This does not seem analagous to the Bay Area cults you referred to, not even close.
The general point is that a post like this cannot be made as a quick take, but needs to be argued more thoroughly with much clearer evidence. As it is, it feels like name-calling.
I’m going on holiday now so I won’t be able to engage further, but I think the above is quite clear.
Someone should write a separate deep-dive post about Leverage Research and its infiltration of EA. (Although you’d be able to get a lot the same information just by reading the sources I cited.) A lot of people in EA are unaware of this story, but it’s important. It’s not exactly super secret or hidden — there seems to be general agreement that Leverage Research is a cult and the Centre for Effective Altruism describes its history with Leverage Research on its website under its “Mistakes we’ve made” page — yet people in EA don’t talk about it.
Maybe you could investigate the topic for yourself and write a deep dive post on it. Maybe someone else could.
The key thing is for people in EA to understand the truth about what happened. And to learn whatever lessons they think they should learn from that.
I’m a bit numb to procedural or formalistic critiques at this point because they always seem to just end up being another way to express substantive disagreement. It’s not like the EA community actually follows the writing and sourcing norms you’re advocating here.
The important thing is the substantive questions:
Is Leverage Research a cult?
Did it take over the Centre for Effective Altruism?
Did it organize the EA Summits and the Pareto Fellowship? Did it play an important role in organizing the first EA Globals?
If so, how could the EA movement, particularly the core international leadership, let this happen?
If so, what might be the broader ramifications of this?
What (if anything) is there to learn from this?
Similarly:
Are there multiple cults (or cult-like groups) that have emerged from or been associated with the LessWrong community (rationalist community)?
If so, why?
Is the threat of a Stop AI co-founder to commit a mass shooting a concern for EA?
If so, what could EA do in response? For instance, what could EA do to discourage extremist beliefs and behaviour, particularly violent behaviour?
Does any of this point to deeper concerns with EA? Is it just a string of bad luck, or is there something more here?
If it’s not just bad luck, what could be done better in the future?
Where you’re making controversial arguments, you need to explain the evidence behind them in the text. Citations should be only for the extra diligent reader, it’s not fair to expect the reader to look into them.
Many of the citations like the one you mentioned now aren’t sufficient. From what I’ve seen, you’ve provided evidence that Leverage did cult-like things, and was involved in organizing EA conferences for a time and there was some overlap with staff. It’s a big jump to then say that EA was literally taken over by a cult and that this effect continues until today. Referring to one comment about the interview process for one fellowship is just so clearly not sufficient to color EA as a whole—not even for that fellowship, of which there are many!
Control AI is related to EA, clearly. This does not seem analagous to the Bay Area cults you referred to, not even close.
The general point is that a post like this cannot be made as a quick take, but needs to be argued more thoroughly with much clearer evidence. As it is, it feels like name-calling.
I’m going on holiday now so I won’t be able to engage further, but I think the above is quite clear.
Someone should write a separate deep-dive post about Leverage Research and its infiltration of EA. (Although you’d be able to get a lot the same information just by reading the sources I cited.) A lot of people in EA are unaware of this story, but it’s important. It’s not exactly super secret or hidden — there seems to be general agreement that Leverage Research is a cult and the Centre for Effective Altruism describes its history with Leverage Research on its website under its “Mistakes we’ve made” page — yet people in EA don’t talk about it.
Maybe you could investigate the topic for yourself and write a deep dive post on it. Maybe someone else could.
The key thing is for people in EA to understand the truth about what happened. And to learn whatever lessons they think they should learn from that.
I’m a bit numb to procedural or formalistic critiques at this point because they always seem to just end up being another way to express substantive disagreement. It’s not like the EA community actually follows the writing and sourcing norms you’re advocating here.
The important thing is the substantive questions:
Is Leverage Research a cult?
Did it take over the Centre for Effective Altruism?
Did it organize the EA Summits and the Pareto Fellowship? Did it play an important role in organizing the first EA Globals?
If so, how could the EA movement, particularly the core international leadership, let this happen?
If so, what might be the broader ramifications of this?
What (if anything) is there to learn from this?
Similarly:
Are there multiple cults (or cult-like groups) that have emerged from or been associated with the LessWrong community (rationalist community)?
If so, why?
Is the threat of a Stop AI co-founder to commit a mass shooting a concern for EA?
If so, what could EA do in response? For instance, what could EA do to discourage extremist beliefs and behaviour, particularly violent behaviour?
Does any of this point to deeper concerns with EA? Is it just a string of bad luck, or is there something more here?
If it’s not just bad luck, what could be done better in the future?