I think this maybe argues against a point not made in the OP. Garfinkel isn’t saying “disregard Yudkowsky’s views”—rather he’s saying “don’t give them extra weight just because Yudkowsky’s the one saying them”.
For example, from his reply to Richard Ngo:
I think it’s really important to seperate out the question “Is Yudkowsky an unusually innovative thinker?” and the question “Is Yudkowsky someone whose credences you should give an unusual amount of weight to?”
I read your comment as arguing for the former, which I don’t disagree with. But that doesn’t mean that people should currently weigh his risk estimates more highly than they weigh the estimates of other researchers currently in the space
So at least from Garfinkel’s perspective, Yudkowsky and Soares do count as data points, they’re just equal in weight to other relevant data points.
(I’m not expressing any of my own, mostly unformed, views here)
I think this maybe argues against a point not made in the OP. Garfinkel isn’t saying “disregard Yudkowsky’s views”—rather he’s saying “don’t give them extra weight just because Yudkowsky’s the one saying them”.
For example, from his reply to Richard Ngo:
So at least from Garfinkel’s perspective, Yudkowsky and Soares do count as data points, they’re just equal in weight to other relevant data points.
(I’m not expressing any of my own, mostly unformed, views here)
Ben has said this about Eliezer, but not about Nate, AFAIK.