I really think you ought to consider renaming this postā¦ Probably about 1000 people will see the title. Thereās some chance you could convince someone to stop donating to AMF just from the titleāthat tends to be how brains work, even though it isnāt very rational.
I think itās not a good idea to respond to criticism in this way. I imagine myself as an outsider, skeptical of some project, and having supporters of the project tell me, āItās morally wrong to say weāre not doing good without following our things-to-do-before-critiquing-us checklist, because critiques of us (if improperly done) might cause us to lose support, which is tantamount to causing harm.ā
I think this would (and should) make skeptic-me take a dimmer view of the project in question. Itās unconvincing on the object level; to the extent that I already donāt think what youāre doing is valuable, I shouldnāt be moved by arguments about how critiquing it might destroy value. And it pattern-matches to the many other instances of humans organizations wanting to dictate the terms on which they can be criticized, and leveraging the force of moral arguments to do so. Organizations that do this kind of thing are often not truth-seeking and genuinely open to criticism (even when itās done āproperlyā by their lights).
I think telling someone not to post criticism without having done X, Y or Z seems bad, but I think asking someone for a title change to make clear that this is a set of concerns one person has come up with rather than e.g. news of an evaluation change from GiveWell is reasonable, and thatās what I read the request as.
Specifically about asking organisations ahead of posting criticism, I think this is a good thing to do, but absolutely shouldnāt be required before posting. In this case, I expect asking someone before posting would have led to a much higher quality post, as the responses from Charles and Linch would almost certainly have come up, and there would have been a chance to discuss them.
I didnāt mean to imply you did, though I see how āhuman organizations wanting to dictate the terms on which they can be criticizedā might sound that way. My sense that itās bad if posts on the Forum that are critical of AMF get met with this kind of argument doesnāt hinge on whether the person making the argument is involved with AMF or not.
Thereās a really interesting meta-point here where it looks like the Europeans broadly agreed that requesting a title change was reasonable (was at +30 karma when I went to sleep) and the West coast EAs disagreed (back down to the original +2 when I woke up).
I think itās not a good idea to respond to criticism in this way. I imagine myself as an outsider, skeptical of some project, and having supporters of the project tell me, āItās morally wrong to say weāre not doing good without following our things-to-do-before-critiquing-us checklist, because critiques of us (if improperly done) might cause us to lose support, which is tantamount to causing harm.ā
I think this would (and should) make skeptic-me take a dimmer view of the project in question. Itās unconvincing on the object level; to the extent that I already donāt think what youāre doing is valuable, I shouldnāt be moved by arguments about how critiquing it might destroy value. And it pattern-matches to the many other instances of humans organizations wanting to dictate the terms on which they can be criticized, and leveraging the force of moral arguments to do so. Organizations that do this kind of thing are often not truth-seeking and genuinely open to criticism (even when itās done āproperlyā by their lights).
I think telling someone not to post criticism without having done X, Y or Z seems bad, but I think asking someone for a title change to make clear that this is a set of concerns one person has come up with rather than e.g. news of an evaluation change from GiveWell is reasonable, and thatās what I read the request as.
Specifically about asking organisations ahead of posting criticism, I think this is a good thing to do, but absolutely shouldnāt be required before posting. In this case, I expect asking someone before posting would have led to a much higher quality post, as the responses from Charles and Linch would almost certainly have come up, and there would have been a chance to discuss them.
I literally have nothing to do with AMF, I just think the title is bad and not representative of the post.
I didnāt mean to imply you did, though I see how āhuman organizations wanting to dictate the terms on which they can be criticizedā might sound that way. My sense that itās bad if posts on the Forum that are critical of AMF get met with this kind of argument doesnāt hinge on whether the person making the argument is involved with AMF or not.
Thereās a really interesting meta-point here where it looks like the Europeans broadly agreed that requesting a title change was reasonable (was at +30 karma when I went to sleep) and the West coast EAs disagreed (back down to the original +2 when I woke up).