I canāt say I have a strategy David. Iāve just been quite upset and riled up by the discourse over the last week just as I had gained some optimism :( Iām afraid that by trying to turn the other cheek to hostility, those working to mitigate AI xRisk end up ceding the court of public opinion to those hostile to it.
I think some suggestions would be:
Standing up to, and callying out, bullying in these discussions can cause a preference cascade of pushback to itāsee hereābut someone needs to stand up for people to realise that dominant voices are not representative of a field, and silence may obscure areas for collaboration and mutual coalitions to form.
Being aware of what critiques of EA/āAI xRisk get traction in adjacent communities. Some of it might be malicious, but a lot of it seems to be a default attitude of scepticism merged with misunderstandings. While not everyone would change their mind, I think people reaching āacross the aisleā might correct the record in many peopleās minds. Even if not for the person making the claims, perhaps for those watching and reading online.
Publicly pushing back on Torres. I donāt know what went down when they were more involved in the EA movement that caused their opinion to flip 180 degrees, but I think the main āstrategyā has been to ignore their work and not respond to their criticism. The result: their ideas gaining prominence in the AI Ethics field, publications in notable outlets, despite acting consistently in bad faith. To their credit, they are voraciously productive in their output and I donāt expect to it slow down. Continuing with a failed strategy doesnāt sound like the right call here.
In cases of the most severe hostility, potential considering legal or institutional action? In this example, can you really just get away with calling someone a eugenicist when itās so obviously false? But there have been cases where people have successfully sued for defamation for statements made on Twitter. Thatās an extreme option though, but not worth ignoring entirely.
What does not āremaining passiveā involve?
I canāt say I have a strategy David. Iāve just been quite upset and riled up by the discourse over the last week just as I had gained some optimism :( Iām afraid that by trying to turn the other cheek to hostility, those working to mitigate AI xRisk end up ceding the court of public opinion to those hostile to it.
I think some suggestions would be:
Standing up to, and callying out, bullying in these discussions can cause a preference cascade of pushback to itāsee hereābut someone needs to stand up for people to realise that dominant voices are not representative of a field, and silence may obscure areas for collaboration and mutual coalitions to form.
Being aware of what critiques of EA/āAI xRisk get traction in adjacent communities. Some of it might be malicious, but a lot of it seems to be a default attitude of scepticism merged with misunderstandings. While not everyone would change their mind, I think people reaching āacross the aisleā might correct the record in many peopleās minds. Even if not for the person making the claims, perhaps for those watching and reading online.
Publicly pushing back on Torres. I donāt know what went down when they were more involved in the EA movement that caused their opinion to flip 180 degrees, but I think the main āstrategyā has been to ignore their work and not respond to their criticism. The result: their ideas gaining prominence in the AI Ethics field, publications in notable outlets, despite acting consistently in bad faith. To their credit, they are voraciously productive in their output and I donāt expect to it slow down. Continuing with a failed strategy doesnāt sound like the right call here.
In cases of the most severe hostility, potential considering legal or institutional action? In this example, can you really just get away with calling someone a eugenicist when itās so obviously false? But there have been cases where people have successfully sued for defamation for statements made on Twitter. Thatās an extreme option though, but not worth ignoring entirely.