I don’t think I feel strongly either way, but why is this something that should posted on the EA Forum ? I don’t think its obvious/clear how someone should view this other than just random AI-industry news ?
I think discussion of StopAI is clearly in scope here. A StopAI organizer has posted here before, and received a mixed reaction from the community.
To give one example of practical relevance, the post immediately above this one (on my current feed) considers financially supporting StopAI, although it expresses concerns about their tactics. That a co-founder of the group has been allegedly talking about violence and potential use of weapons against AI folks strikes me as pretty relevant for readers who may have been considering support of, or even involvement in, StopAI.
I agree this post is within scope, but that is because it is about AI and policy. It’s not because StopAI has any nontrivial EA support.
A StopAI organizer has posted here before, and received a mixed reaction from the community.
The post got −29 karma, which is an extreme outlier for how negative it is. Unless by “mixed” you mean ‘not literally everyone disliked it’, I think by any reasonable account the post received a decidedly negative response. ‘a guy who wrote a downvoted post has a co-organizer who did something bad’ is not enough to make something notable—if our standards were that low, almost anything would be within scope.
To give one example of practical relevance, the post immediately above this one (on my current feed) considers financially supporting StopAI, although it expresses concerns about their tactics.
I think this is an unfair summary, making the post sound significantly more positive to StopAI than it is. Michael considered donating, having decided not to in the past, and then decided to continue not donating, as he had “become more confident in [his] skepticism”.
I don’t think I feel strongly either way, but why is this something that should posted on the EA Forum ? I don’t think its obvious/clear how someone should view this other than just random AI-industry news ?
I think discussion of StopAI is clearly in scope here. A StopAI organizer has posted here before, and received a mixed reaction from the community.
To give one example of practical relevance, the post immediately above this one (on my current feed) considers financially supporting StopAI, although it expresses concerns about their tactics. That a co-founder of the group has been allegedly talking about violence and potential use of weapons against AI folks strikes me as pretty relevant for readers who may have been considering support of, or even involvement in, StopAI.
I agree this post is within scope, but that is because it is about AI and policy. It’s not because StopAI has any nontrivial EA support.
The post got −29 karma, which is an extreme outlier for how negative it is. Unless by “mixed” you mean ‘not literally everyone disliked it’, I think by any reasonable account the post received a decidedly negative response. ‘a guy who wrote a downvoted post has a co-organizer who did something bad’ is not enough to make something notable—if our standards were that low, almost anything would be within scope.
I think this is an unfair summary, making the post sound significantly more positive to StopAI than it is. Michael considered donating, having decided not to in the past, and then decided to continue not donating, as he had “become more confident in [his] skepticism”.