I do think governance is very important, as EA’s recent history has illustrated, and deserves way more discussion.
Outsiders cannot easily evaluate the morass of internal wikipedia discussions, but they could evaluate Jimbo
I’m skeptical of this argument, but I’m trying to steelman. Is the idea that I can form an opinion of Jimbo’s character based on e.g. his tweets, and once I trust his character, I can trust him to adjudicate internal Wikipedia disputes?
Because if I’m forming my opinion of Jimbo by reading internal Wikipedia disputes—which honestly seems like the best method—we might be back where we started.
Wikipedia does run ArbCom elections, but you need a certain number of edits to vote. Presumably that additional context helps voters evaluate candidates. (EDIT: It could also worsen self-selection/organizational drift issues. I’m tempted to say self-selection is the main problem with controversial online discussion.)
EDIT: I suppose Larks’ argument could also work if you simply empower the existing ArbCom with a broad mandate.
I’m sure there are a bunch of leaders you have some opinions of—Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jamie Dimon, Peter Thiel, Kim Jong Un, Joe Biden etc. You made those evaluations based on some mixture of different factors—reading their tweets, seeing them interviewed, observing whether their plans work out, reading other people’s views on them. If they were a big wikipedia editor, you could even read internal wikipedia disputes they participated in, just as reading their EAF/LW comments can help you judge people here.
The key step is that you make this evaluation for the one single leader, and then if they seem intelligent and ethical and motivated and organised and so on, infer that the organisation they lead is good also. You don’t have to read all the wikipedia disputes to judge the collective decision making of the editors, or even a representative sample—just read some controversial ones Jimmy got stuck into, and see if the King ruled wisely.
The reason this is not ‘right back where we started’ is I think most people find it much easier to evaluate a single human (a task we practice all our lives at, and did in the ancestral environment) than to evaluate large organisations (a much more difficult skill, with worse feedback mechanisms, that did not exist in the ancestral environment).
The reason this is not ‘right back where we started’ is I think most people find it much easier to evaluate a single human (a task we practice all our lives at, and did in the ancestral environment) than to evaluate large organisations (a much more difficult skill, with worse feedback mechanisms, that did not exist in the ancestral environment).
Sure, that seems reasonable. Another point is that large groups may have competing internal factions, which could create a source of variability in their decision-making which makes their decisions harder to understand and predict.
Lower variability with the CEO approach should mean a smaller sample size is required to get a bead on their decision-making style.
BTW, did you get the private message I sent you regarding a typo in your original comment? Wondering if private messages are working properly.
I do think governance is very important, as EA’s recent history has illustrated, and deserves way more discussion.
I’m skeptical of this argument, but I’m trying to steelman. Is the idea that I can form an opinion of Jimbo’s character based on e.g. his tweets, and once I trust his character, I can trust him to adjudicate internal Wikipedia disputes?
Because if I’m forming my opinion of Jimbo by reading internal Wikipedia disputes—which honestly seems like the best method—we might be back where we started.
Wikipedia does run ArbCom elections, but you need a certain number of edits to vote. Presumably that additional context helps voters evaluate candidates. (EDIT: It could also worsen self-selection/organizational drift issues. I’m tempted to say self-selection is the main problem with controversial online discussion.)
EDIT: I suppose Larks’ argument could also work if you simply empower the existing ArbCom with a broad mandate.
I’m sure there are a bunch of leaders you have some opinions of—Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jamie Dimon, Peter Thiel, Kim Jong Un, Joe Biden etc. You made those evaluations based on some mixture of different factors—reading their tweets, seeing them interviewed, observing whether their plans work out, reading other people’s views on them. If they were a big wikipedia editor, you could even read internal wikipedia disputes they participated in, just as reading their EAF/LW comments can help you judge people here.
The key step is that you make this evaluation for the one single leader, and then if they seem intelligent and ethical and motivated and organised and so on, infer that the organisation they lead is good also. You don’t have to read all the wikipedia disputes to judge the collective decision making of the editors, or even a representative sample—just read some controversial ones Jimmy got stuck into, and see if the King ruled wisely.
The reason this is not ‘right back where we started’ is I think most people find it much easier to evaluate a single human (a task we practice all our lives at, and did in the ancestral environment) than to evaluate large organisations (a much more difficult skill, with worse feedback mechanisms, that did not exist in the ancestral environment).
Sure, that seems reasonable. Another point is that large groups may have competing internal factions, which could create a source of variability in their decision-making which makes their decisions harder to understand and predict.
Lower variability with the CEO approach should mean a smaller sample size is required to get a bead on their decision-making style.
BTW, did you get the private message I sent you regarding a typo in your original comment? Wondering if private messages are working properly.