80000 hours podcast should platform more critics of EA/people adjacent to EA with very different approaches or conclusion with regards to what we do . Some suggestions:
Luke Kemp, Zoe Cremer, Timnit Gebru, Emily Bender, Tim Lenton. Thus we can try and get their perspective and understand why we differ
Maybe I have pretty high tolerance for people I want to hear from, but generally I want to hear from people who are pretty different. I have a more ‘tame’ list of suggestions who are less critical of EA but take different approaches to us, but thought a little bit of spiciness would be fun and useful (but maybe I always would, I’m a bit heretical by disposition 😂)
FWIW I think there could be ‘harsher’ critics invited than folks like Luke Kemp and Zoe Cremer who are to my views still fairly engaged with EA (adding this just to give a sense of variance in opinions)
One consideration is for some of those names, their ‘conversation’ with EA is already sorta happening on Twitter. The right frame for this might be whether Twitter or a podcast is a better medium for that conversation.
You could argue podcasts don’t funge against tweets. I think they might—I think people are often frustrated and want to say something, and a spoken conversation can be more effective at making them feel heard. See The muted signal hypothesis of online outrage. So I’d be more concerned about e.g. giving legitimacy to inaccurate criticisms, rewarding a low signal/noise ratio, or having extemporaneous speech taken out of context. These are all less of a concern if we substitute the 80K podcast for one that’s lower-profile—some of the people mentioned could be topical for Garrison’s podcast?
Edit: I suppose listening to this podcast might be good for value of information?
80000 hours podcast should platform more critics of EA/people adjacent to EA with very different approaches or conclusion with regards to what we do . Some suggestions: Luke Kemp, Zoe Cremer, Timnit Gebru, Emily Bender, Tim Lenton. Thus we can try and get their perspective and understand why we differ
I agree with the first sentence. I disagree with the suggested people. But then maybe I always would.
Maybe I have pretty high tolerance for people I want to hear from, but generally I want to hear from people who are pretty different. I have a more ‘tame’ list of suggestions who are less critical of EA but take different approaches to us, but thought a little bit of spiciness would be fun and useful (but maybe I always would, I’m a bit heretical by disposition 😂)
FWIW I think there could be ‘harsher’ critics invited than folks like Luke Kemp and Zoe Cremer who are to my views still fairly engaged with EA (adding this just to give a sense of variance in opinions)
One consideration is for some of those names, their ‘conversation’ with EA is already sorta happening on Twitter. The right frame for this might be whether Twitter or a podcast is a better medium for that conversation.
You could argue podcasts don’t funge against tweets. I think they might—I think people are often frustrated and want to say something, and a spoken conversation can be more effective at making them feel heard. See The muted signal hypothesis of online outrage. So I’d be more concerned about e.g. giving legitimacy to inaccurate criticisms, rewarding a low signal/noise ratio, or having extemporaneous speech taken out of context. These are all less of a concern if we substitute the 80K podcast for one that’s lower-profile—some of the people mentioned could be topical for Garrison’s podcast?
Edit: I suppose listening to this podcast might be good for value of information?