First of all, sympathies again. Having hundreds of comments piled on (twice) must be an exceedingly unpleasant experience, and I hope you find some time to practice self-care and enjoy the holidays.
I want to be respectful of your time and the very difficult emotional spot you’re going through, but it seems like your comment is rather afield of the original point I was making. Recall that Roko summarized the situation as:
Nonlinear leadership responded that actually they were getting paid enough (seems to amount to something liked $100k/yr all in)...
Since nobody else tried to correct Roko in 4 days, I tried to explain that he was off on two fronts with that line: a) Nobody said $100k/yr, the highest claimed number was ~$75k/year and b) saying someone is “getting paid” $75k/year will predictably give a misleading impression when said payment includes flights and lodging with your employer at expensive places.
That was it. I did not say anything about consent or agreement until you brought it up (and then only to deny that I took the contrary position). I didn’t say anything about whether the deal was net good or bad. Note also that my original comment was exactly one sentence.
I’m not sure how to say this politely, but you write rather long paragraphs arguing against a position I do not hold, and I clearly never did. I don’t appreciate you reframing my language imprecisely[1] and strongly implying things I didn’t say.
To be honest, your comments triggered “someone is wrong on the internet” feelings from me, and I have to actively resist my natural instincts to fight back line-by-line. Like dude if you want to win a fight by writing overly long and nitpicky EA forum comments you sure picked the wrong person to mess with.
I understand that you’re in an emotionally tough spot right now, and I want to be respectful of your time, so I’ll refrain from commenting further in this thread.
Additionally, we need to be able to distinguish between “this was what they chose” and “this was what they would have preferred if they could have had anything in the world right away without having to ask”.
I never at any point said that they didn’t choose this.
Like, imagine I applied the same standards to funders. “I asked for $50,000 and they gave me $50,000, but I would have preferred $75,000. Yes, I didn’t ask for $75,000, but most people in my shoes would prefer $75,000 over $50,000.” (Or replace with whatever numbers make most sense to you)
(speaking for myself) No, I think it’s more like if I did active grantmaking, saw Alex who might be a good independent researcher, but was worried that they were doing too much theory and not enough computational work, and also think they’d benefit more from working in Berkeley, and also that they’d be more productive if they exercised more (no offense to them of course). So I arranged for them to be paid $10k in stipend, $15k in housing subsidies for Berkeley, and bought $25k in compute credits for them, and arranged $15k worth of office space in Berkeley, and bought an expensive gym membership from FAR for $10k/year.
And then afterwards I go around telling people that Alex was paid $75k/year. People might reasonably object on whether (e.g.) just because I somehow managed to be deluded enough to pay $10k/year in overpriced gym memberships to a third party on behalf of a grantee who doesn’t exercise, that it’s actually equivalent to paying the grantee $10k/year.
This follows the same structure of the argument “Alice and Chloe signed up for a all-expenses-paid + stipend compensation package and they got that, but they would have preferred a cash salary of a similar value to the comp package. Yes, they didn’t ask for that, but most people in their shoes would prefer a cash salary over the other comp package.”
The whole point is that it wasn’t the same value. Cost does not equal value! Also I note that you are putting quote marks around things I didn’t say. Instead of block quotes, would you prefer if instead (mis)quoted you as saying “I think approving a grant should have the exact same responsibilities and norms as employing someone under your direct care and instruction. Also I hate Taylor Swift and I like pineapple on pizza[2]”?
Or maybe a better analogy is a charity applying for funding and the grantmaker donates but with earmarked funds. All orgs would prefer unearmarked funds (flexible funds are more useful than earmarked ones), but that doesn’t mean it’s unethical for a donor to earmark their donations.
In this comment chain, I never said anything about whether an action is ethical or not.
First of all, sympathies again. Having hundreds of comments piled on (twice) must be an exceedingly unpleasant experience, and I hope you find some time to practice self-care and enjoy the holidays.
I want to be respectful of your time and the very difficult emotional spot you’re going through, but it seems like your comment is rather afield of the original point I was making. Recall that Roko summarized the situation as:
Since nobody else tried to correct Roko in 4 days, I tried to explain that he was off on two fronts with that line: a) Nobody said $100k/yr, the highest claimed number was ~$75k/year and b) saying someone is “getting paid” $75k/year will predictably give a misleading impression when said payment includes flights and lodging with your employer at expensive places.
That was it. I did not say anything about consent or agreement until you brought it up (and then only to deny that I took the contrary position). I didn’t say anything about whether the deal was net good or bad. Note also that my original comment was exactly one sentence.
I’m not sure how to say this politely, but you write rather long paragraphs arguing against a position I do not hold, and I clearly never did. I don’t appreciate you reframing my language imprecisely[1] and strongly implying things I didn’t say.
To be honest, your comments triggered “someone is wrong on the internet” feelings from me, and I have to actively resist my natural instincts to fight back line-by-line. Like dude if you want to win a fight by writing overly long and nitpicky EA forum comments you sure picked the wrong person to mess with.
I understand that you’re in an emotionally tough spot right now, and I want to be respectful of your time, so I’ll refrain from commenting further in this thread.
I never at any point said that they didn’t choose this.
(speaking for myself) No, I think it’s more like if I did active grantmaking, saw Alex who might be a good independent researcher, but was worried that they were doing too much theory and not enough computational work, and also think they’d benefit more from working in Berkeley, and also that they’d be more productive if they exercised more (no offense to them of course). So I arranged for them to be paid $10k in stipend, $15k in housing subsidies for Berkeley, and bought $25k in compute credits for them, and arranged $15k worth of office space in Berkeley, and bought an expensive gym membership from FAR for $10k/year.
And then afterwards I go around telling people that Alex was paid $75k/year. People might reasonably object on whether (e.g.) just because I somehow managed to be deluded enough to pay $10k/year in overpriced gym memberships to a third party on behalf of a grantee who doesn’t exercise, that it’s actually equivalent to paying the grantee $10k/year.
The whole point is that it wasn’t the same value. Cost does not equal value! Also I note that you are putting quote marks around things I didn’t say. Instead of block quotes, would you prefer if instead (mis)quoted you as saying “I think approving a grant should have the exact same responsibilities and norms as employing someone under your direct care and instruction. Also I hate Taylor Swift and I like pineapple on pizza[2]”?
In this comment chain, I never said anything about whether an action is ethical or not.
As the saying goes “anything is possible if you lie.”