I strong upvoted this because: 1) I think AI governance is a big deal (the argument for this has been fleshed out elsewhere by others in the community) and 2) I think this comment is directionally correct beyond the AI governance bit even if I don’t think it quite fully fleshes out the case for it (I’ll have a go at fleshing out the case when I have more time but this is a time-consuming thing to do and my first attempt will be crap even if there is actually something to it).
I think that strong upvoting was appropriate because: 1) stating beliefs that go against the perceived consensus view is hard and takes courage 2) the only way the effective altruism community develops new good ideas is if people feel they have permission to state views that are different from the community “accepted” view.
I think some example steps for forming new good ideas are: 1) someone states, without a fully fleshed out case, what they believe 2) others then think about whether that seems true to them and begin to flesh out reasons for their gut-level intuition 3) other people pushback on those reasons and point out the nuance 4) the people who initially have the gut-level hunch that the statement is true either change their minds or iterate their argument so it incorporates the nuance that others have pointed out for them. If the latter happens then, 5) More nuanced versions of the arguments are written up and steps 3 to 5 repeat themselves as much as necessary for the new good ideas to have a fleshed out case for them.
I strong upvoted this because:
1) I think AI governance is a big deal (the argument for this has been fleshed out elsewhere by others in the community) and
2) I think this comment is directionally correct beyond the AI governance bit even if I don’t think it quite fully fleshes out the case for it (I’ll have a go at fleshing out the case when I have more time but this is a time-consuming thing to do and my first attempt will be crap even if there is actually something to it).
I think that strong upvoting was appropriate because:
1) stating beliefs that go against the perceived consensus view is hard and takes courage
2) the only way the effective altruism community develops new good ideas is if people feel they have permission to state views that are different from the community “accepted” view.
I think some example steps for forming new good ideas are:
1) someone states, without a fully fleshed out case, what they believe
2) others then think about whether that seems true to them and begin to flesh out reasons for their gut-level intuition
3) other people pushback on those reasons and point out the nuance
4) the people who initially have the gut-level hunch that the statement is true either change their minds or iterate their argument so it incorporates the nuance that others have pointed out for them. If the latter happens then,
5) More nuanced versions of the arguments are written up and steps 3 to 5 repeat themselves as much as necessary for the new good ideas to have a fleshed out case for them.