Some people might find that this post is written from a place of agitation which is fully okay. I think that even if you do there are two things that I would want to point out as really good points:
A dependence on funders and people with money as something that shapes social capital and incentives, therefore thought in itself. We should therefore be quite vary of the effect that has on people, this can definetely be felt in the community and I think it is a great point.
That the karma algorithm could be revisited and that we should think about what incentives are created for the forum through it.
I think thereās a very very interesting project of democratizingthe EA community in a way that makes it more effective. There are lots of institutional design that we can apply to ourselves and I would be very excited to see more work in this direction!
Edit:
Clarification on why I believe it to cause some agitation for some people:
I remember that some of the situation around Cremer being a bit politically loaded and that the emotions were running hot at that time and so citing that specific situation makes it lack a bit of context.
There are some object level things that people within the community disagree with when it comes to these comments that point at deeper issues of epistemics and cause prioritization that is actually difficult to answer.
The post makes it seem more one-sided than that situation was. Elitism in EA is something covered in the in-depth fellowship for example and thereās a bunch of back and forth there but it is an issue that you will arrive at different consequences on depending on what modelling assumptions you do.
I donāt want to make a value judgement on this here, I just want to point out that specifice piece of Cremerās writing has always felt a bit thorny which makes the references feel a bit inflammatory?
For me itās the vibe that it is written from a perspective of being post EA and something about when leaving something behind you want to get back at the thing itself by pointing out how itās wrong? So it is kind of written from a emotionally framed perspective which makes the epistemics fraught?
Thereās some sort of degree where the framing of the post in itself pattern matches onto other critiques that have felt bad faith and so it is āinflammatoryā that it raises the immune system of people reading it. I do still think it is quite a valuable point, it is just that part of the phrasing makes it come across more like this than it has to be?
I think that might be because of LLMs often liking to argue towards a specific point but Iām not sure? (Youāve got some writing that is reminiscent of claude so I could spot the use of it: e.g):
This isnāt just a technical issue. This is a design philosophy ā one that rewards orthodoxy, punishes dissent, and enforces existing hierarchies.
I liked the post, I think it made a good point, I strong upvoted it but I wanted to mention it as a caveat.
Elitism in EA is something covered in the in-depth fellowship for example and thereās a bunch of back and forth there but it is an issue that you will arrive at different consequences on depending on what modelling assumptions you do.
Do you remember which in-depth fellowshipās syllabus talks about elitism in EA? Iāve seen a few versions the syllabus before but I donāt think I have encountered a piece of reading on elitism. No worries if you donāt!
I think I went through it in Spring 2021? I remember discussing it then as one of the advanced optional topics, maybe around steering versus rowing and that the discussion went into that? I canāt remember it more clearly than that though.
I think thereās a very very interesting project of democratizingthe EA community in a way that makes it more effective. There are lots of institutional design that we can apply to ourselves and I would be very excited to see more work in this direction!
As my friend Bob has proposed, one of the most promising proposals is to run an EA organization as a workersā cooperative (see Bobās post about the benefits of cooperatives). It could bring about greater trust in EA organizations and possibly better decision-making by those organizations.
Some people might find that this post is written from a place of agitation which is fully okay. I think that even if you do there are two things that I would want to point out as really good points:
A dependence on funders and people with money as something that shapes social capital and incentives, therefore thought in itself. We should therefore be quite vary of the effect that has on people, this can definetely be felt in the community and I think it is a great point.
That the karma algorithm could be revisited and that we should think about what incentives are created for the forum through it.
I think thereās a very very interesting project of democratizingthe EA community in a way that makes it more effective. There are lots of institutional design that we can apply to ourselves and I would be very excited to see more work in this direction!
Edit:
Clarification on why I believe it to cause some agitation for some people:
I remember that some of the situation around Cremer being a bit politically loaded and that the emotions were running hot at that time and so citing that specific situation makes it lack a bit of context.
There are some object level things that people within the community disagree with when it comes to these comments that point at deeper issues of epistemics and cause prioritization that is actually difficult to answer.
The post makes it seem more one-sided than that situation was. Elitism in EA is something covered in the in-depth fellowship for example and thereās a bunch of back and forth there but it is an issue that you will arrive at different consequences on depending on what modelling assumptions you do.
I donāt want to make a value judgement on this here, I just want to point out that specifice piece of Cremerās writing has always felt a bit thorny which makes the references feel a bit inflammatory?
For me itās the vibe that it is written from a perspective of being post EA and something about when leaving something behind you want to get back at the thing itself by pointing out how itās wrong? So it is kind of written from a emotionally framed perspective which makes the epistemics fraught?
Thereās some sort of degree where the framing of the post in itself pattern matches onto other critiques that have felt bad faith and so it is āinflammatoryā that it raises the immune system of people reading it. I do still think it is quite a valuable point, it is just that part of the phrasing makes it come across more like this than it has to be?
I think that might be because of LLMs often liking to argue towards a specific point but Iām not sure?
(Youāve got some writing that is reminiscent of claude so I could spot the use of it: e.g):
I liked the post, I think it made a good point, I strong upvoted it but I wanted to mention it as a caveat.
Do you remember which in-depth fellowshipās syllabus talks about elitism in EA? Iāve seen a few versions the syllabus before but I donāt think I have encountered a piece of reading on elitism. No worries if you donāt!
I think I went through it in Spring 2021? I remember discussing it then as one of the advanced optional topics, maybe around steering versus rowing and that the discussion went into that? I canāt remember it more clearly than that though.
Thank you for the constructive reply.
As my friend Bob has proposed, one of the most promising proposals is to run an EA organization as a workersā cooperative (see Bobās post about the benefits of cooperatives). It could bring about greater trust in EA organizations and possibly better decision-making by those organizations.