Strong downvoted. There is a way to discuss these issues. This is not it. It wraps up policy proposals with observables in a way I think will really pollute the epistemic environment, and hinder any good solutions.
It’s a pretty typical failure mode to police reports of harm on their form or tone instead of engaging with the subject matter. A more successful community manages to process reports without defensiveness. The author made their point clear, thus they are contributing more towards seeing the issue addressed than anyone who wants it downvoted.
Weak disagree vote. I don’t think they made their point clearly, and I think the community would come up with better solutions to the underlying problem if the post proposing we come up with those solutions separated its observations from policy proposals more. I anticipate such a post would have come out in the counterfactual where this post didn’t occur, so this post is net-negative for solving the problem its attempting to point to.
I also don’t know how much OP wants to see the problem fixed compared to myself or others. They made a post about the problem, but the post was not set up to allow for solutions other than those they previously had in mind. So I anticipate they care more about advancing their preferred policy positions than solving actual problems.
I disagree—it’s more likely that this area sees serious work the more reports are made. If you are concerned about it, too, you could add your own, without telling others to be quiet and risking that the problem is overlooked or not grasped in its full extent.
The author said enough in their post and comments to resolve any confusion: they want to see this problem addressed. Your assumption that they don’t care about solving problems when they spent effort on pointing out this problem is unreasonably uncharitable.
I disagree—it’s more likely that this area sees serious work the more reports are made. If you are concerned about it, too, you could add your own, without telling others to be quiet and risking that the problem is overlooked or not grasped in its full extent.
I would not have much to add, so I don’t think I’m going to make a post. I also don’t think I told anyone to be quiet about the issues they’re facing. I did tell the OP that I strong downvoted their post because I thought it was destructive to epistemics around this issue.
You make a good point that more discussion is often favorable to figuring out the root of problems. I just think in this case that consideration is outweighed the soldier mindset framing used by OP when trying to discuss the problem.
The author said enough in their post and comments to resolve any confusion: they want to see this problem addressed. Your assumption that they don’t care about solving problems when they spent effort on pointing out this problem is unreasonably uncharitable.
~~I didn’t say they don’t care about solving problems. I said I’m uncertain about their goals, which I think is justified for reasons I gave in the paragraph where I said I was uncertain about their goals. ~~ Just looked back. This is wrong. I did make this claim, and you’re right. I should be more uncertain. I do still think I’m more uncertain of their motives than you are though.
Agree would be good to separate these issues from the FTX situation, but I think the issues in the post sound important. I don’t get involved in “EA circles” outside of reading this forum occasionally, but it sounds like something worth discussing for those that do.
Weak agree vote. I anticipate a far better post would have come out in the counterfactual where this post didn’t occur, so this post is net-negative for solving the problem its attempting to point to.
I also don’t know how important the problem is. The post definitely makes it sound important, but OP also doesn’t seem to be very truth-seeking, so I don’t know how much exaggeration has gone into the object-level claims they make.
Strong downvoted. There is a way to discuss these issues. This is not it. It wraps up policy proposals with observables in a way I think will really pollute the epistemic environment, and hinder any good solutions.
It’s a pretty typical failure mode to police reports of harm on their form or tone instead of engaging with the subject matter. A more successful community manages to process reports without defensiveness. The author made their point clear, thus they are contributing more towards seeing the issue addressed than anyone who wants it downvoted.
Weak disagree vote. I don’t think they made their point clearly, and I think the community would come up with better solutions to the underlying problem if the post proposing we come up with those solutions separated its observations from policy proposals more. I anticipate such a post would have come out in the counterfactual where this post didn’t occur, so this post is net-negative for solving the problem its attempting to point to.
I also don’t know how much OP wants to see the problem fixed compared to myself or others. They made a post about the problem, but the post was not set up to allow for solutions other than those they previously had in mind. So I anticipate they care more about advancing their preferred policy positions than solving actual problems.
I disagree—it’s more likely that this area sees serious work the more reports are made. If you are concerned about it, too, you could add your own, without telling others to be quiet and risking that the problem is overlooked or not grasped in its full extent.
The author said enough in their post and comments to resolve any confusion: they want to see this problem addressed. Your assumption that they don’t care about solving problems when they spent effort on pointing out this problem is unreasonably uncharitable.
I would not have much to add, so I don’t think I’m going to make a post. I also don’t think I told anyone to be quiet about the issues they’re facing. I did tell the OP that I strong downvoted their post because I thought it was destructive to epistemics around this issue.
You make a good point that more discussion is often favorable to figuring out the root of problems. I just think in this case that consideration is outweighed the soldier mindset framing used by OP when trying to discuss the problem.
~~I didn’t say they don’t care about solving problems. I said I’m uncertain about their goals, which I think is justified for reasons I gave in the paragraph where I said I was uncertain about their goals. ~~ Just looked back. This is wrong. I did make this claim, and you’re right. I should be more uncertain. I do still think I’m more uncertain of their motives than you are though.
Comment chain here has been retracted because I dislike the quality of the discussion I caused.
Agree would be good to separate these issues from the FTX situation, but I think the issues in the post sound important. I don’t get involved in “EA circles” outside of reading this forum occasionally, but it sounds like something worth discussing for those that do.
Weak agree vote. I anticipate a far better post would have come out in the counterfactual where this post didn’t occur, so this post is net-negative for solving the problem its attempting to point to.
I also don’t know how important the problem is. The post definitely makes it sound important, but OP also doesn’t seem to be very truth-seeking, so I don’t know how much exaggeration has gone into the object-level claims they make.