I’m kind of confused by this. I went to LessOnline and Manifest feel like I hardly heard any racist opinions. It’s possible that such people don’t talk to me or that opinions that the poster thinks are racist, I don’t, but I dunno, I just didn’t hear much of that kind of edginess. It was probably slightly less edgy than I expected.
I have some sympathy with the poster. I didn’t like that Hanania was given top billing last year and pushed in the discord for that to change (and wrote this). I have literally taken flack for not being harsh enough there, but I stand by what I said—that status is something to be careful when doling out and that Hanania didn’t deserve it. Not that he never would, but that he wasn’t at the time.
To me it feels like those people who generate new ideas are pretty scattershot about it. Hanson has some great ideas and some pretty bad ones. But I think if he never felt comfortable saying a bad idea he might not say some really good ones too.
The question then is whether it is ethical to have events that involve people with bad ideas and whether there are ways to minimise harms. I think yes to both. To me, the prediction market space is an unusually good option here—it can be free speechy but try to give status to those who have good forecasting track records rather than just the edgiest people (which sometimes happens in heterodox spaces and I find very tiring). If I think manifest is on the wrong side of this, I hope I’ll stop going.
But I do think that sometimes trying to see the truth may involve engaging with uncomfortable or bad ideas. People who come up with good ideas may come up with bad ones. Trying to invite truth seeking individuals may also leave a net broad enough for scoundrels.
I don’t think this is for everyone but I would like there to be a free speech space that isn’t the dissident right. Caplan is right to say that IQ realists are a scary bunch. I sometimes think the same is true of free thinkers. But I think they also sometimes give me ideas that are really valuable. I don’t recommend everyone go to such events, nor that such events be labelled for everyone, but I think it is probably good that they exist.
And the Guardian article was deeply lazy, and that kind of behaviour should be taxed, regardless of what it is about.
Agree, and my experience was also free of racism, although I only went to one session (my debate with Brian Chau) and otherwise had free-mingling conversations. It’s possible the racist people just didn’t gravitate to me.
I would never have debated Brian Chau for a podcast or video because I don’t think it’s worth /don’t want to platform his org and its views more broadly, but Manifest was a great space where people who are sympathetic to his views are actually open to hearing PauseAI’s case in response. I think conferences like that, with a strong emphasis on free speech and free exchange, are valuable.
I’m kind of confused by this. I went to LessOnline and Manifest feel like I hardly heard any racist opinions. It’s possible that such people don’t talk to me or that opinions that the poster thinks are racist, I don’t, but I dunno, I just didn’t hear much of that kind of edginess. It was probably slightly less edgy than I expected.
I have some sympathy with the poster. I didn’t like that Hanania was given top billing last year and pushed in the discord for that to change (and wrote this). I have literally taken flack for not being harsh enough there, but I stand by what I said—that status is something to be careful when doling out and that Hanania didn’t deserve it. Not that he never would, but that he wasn’t at the time.
To me it feels like those people who generate new ideas are pretty scattershot about it. Hanson has some great ideas and some pretty bad ones. But I think if he never felt comfortable saying a bad idea he might not say some really good ones too.
The question then is whether it is ethical to have events that involve people with bad ideas and whether there are ways to minimise harms. I think yes to both. To me, the prediction market space is an unusually good option here—it can be free speechy but try to give status to those who have good forecasting track records rather than just the edgiest people (which sometimes happens in heterodox spaces and I find very tiring). If I think manifest is on the wrong side of this, I hope I’ll stop going.
But I do think that sometimes trying to see the truth may involve engaging with uncomfortable or bad ideas. People who come up with good ideas may come up with bad ones. Trying to invite truth seeking individuals may also leave a net broad enough for scoundrels.
I don’t think this is for everyone but I would like there to be a free speech space that isn’t the dissident right. Caplan is right to say that IQ realists are a scary bunch. I sometimes think the same is true of free thinkers. But I think they also sometimes give me ideas that are really valuable. I don’t recommend everyone go to such events, nor that such events be labelled for everyone, but I think it is probably good that they exist.
And the Guardian article was deeply lazy, and that kind of behaviour should be taxed, regardless of what it is about.
Agree, and my experience was also free of racism, although I only went to one session (my debate with Brian Chau) and otherwise had free-mingling conversations. It’s possible the racist people just didn’t gravitate to me.
I would never have debated Brian Chau for a podcast or video because I don’t think it’s worth /don’t want to platform his org and its views more broadly, but Manifest was a great space where people who are sympathetic to his views are actually open to hearing PauseAI’s case in response. I think conferences like that, with a strong emphasis on free speech and free exchange, are valuable.