This seems like an important criticism and warning—but I think that the response to the Torres piece has been dismissive for reasons largely unrelated to the discussion here. I’ve spoken to Phil recently, and he feels like he’s been reasonable in personally attacking several people in EA, both because of how they treated him(1), and their supposedly dangerous / “genocidal” ideologies—and he isn’t likely to change his mind. That seems to be why most of the people whose positions are being attacked aren’t responding themselves—not only were they personally attacked, but it seems clear that substantive engagement with the specific criticisms is no longer a way to effectively respond or discuss this with Phil.
Otherwise, I think EA still does have a record of being very willing to engage in discussion, and I agree that we need to be zealous in protecting our willingness to do so—so thanks for this post!
1) I won’t comment on what happened, other than to say that most of what is being complained about seems like typical drama where it’s easy to blame anyone you’d like depending on the narrative you construct.
“Thanks for the response, reading your posts was one of the biggest inspirations for me writing this, its overall demeanor reminded me of what I see as this older strain of EA public interface in a way I hadn’t thought of in a while. On the point of MacAskill responding, I think the information you’ve given is helpful, but I do think there would have been some value in public commentary even if Torres personally wasn’t going to change his mind because of it, for instance it would have addressed concerns the piece gave outsiders who read it, and it would have both legitimized and responded to the concerns of insiders who might have resonated with some of what Torres said. As it happens, I think the community did respond to it somewhat significantly, but in a pretty partial, snubbish way. Robert Wiblin for instance appeared to subtweet the piece like twice:
A similar story can be said of MacAskill himself, shortly after the piece came out he made some comments on EA Forum apparently correcting misconceptions about longtermism the piece brought up without engaging with the piece directly:
Maybe Torres doesn’t deserve direct engagement even if some of his concerns do (or maybe he does), but it seems hard to deny that its publication had some non-trivial impact on the internal conversations of the movement, including in some ways there was already an appetite for. Though again I can’t expect more direct engagement (especially from those personally attacked), it does seem to me more thorough, direct engagement from prominent figures would have been better in many ways than most of the actual reaction.”
I mostly agree, but the revision of the Longtermism white paper from the original “work in progress” version seems like exactly the type of response to some of the early claims you’re requesting—see the discussion on fanaticism. And given how recent all of this is, further responses could still be forthcoming, as these types of conversations take time.
This seems like an important criticism and warning—but I think that the response to the Torres piece has been dismissive for reasons largely unrelated to the discussion here. I’ve spoken to Phil recently, and he feels like he’s been reasonable in personally attacking several people in EA, both because of how they treated him(1), and their supposedly dangerous / “genocidal” ideologies—and he isn’t likely to change his mind. That seems to be why most of the people whose positions are being attacked aren’t responding themselves—not only were they personally attacked, but it seems clear that substantive engagement with the specific criticisms is no longer a way to effectively respond or discuss this with Phil.
Otherwise, I think EA still does have a record of being very willing to engage in discussion, and I agree that we need to be zealous in protecting our willingness to do so—so thanks for this post!
1) I won’t comment on what happened, other than to say that most of what is being complained about seems like typical drama where it’s easy to blame anyone you’d like depending on the narrative you construct.
Devin’s reply:
“Thanks for the response, reading your posts was one of the biggest inspirations for me writing this, its overall demeanor reminded me of what I see as this older strain of EA public interface in a way I hadn’t thought of in a while. On the point of MacAskill responding, I think the information you’ve given is helpful, but I do think there would have been some value in public commentary even if Torres personally wasn’t going to change his mind because of it, for instance it would have addressed concerns the piece gave outsiders who read it, and it would have both legitimized and responded to the concerns of insiders who might have resonated with some of what Torres said. As it happens, I think the community did respond to it somewhat significantly, but in a pretty partial, snubbish way. Robert Wiblin for instance appeared to subtweet the piece like twice:
https://mobile.twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1422213998527799307
https://mobile.twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1438883980351361030
Culminating in his recent 80k interview which he strongly advertised as a response to these concerns (again, without naming the article):
https://mobile.twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1445817240008355843
A similar story can be said of MacAskill himself, shortly after the piece came out he made some comments on EA Forum apparently correcting misconceptions about longtermism the piece brought up without engaging with the piece directly:
https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/fStCX6RXmgxkTBe73/towards-a-weaker-longtermism#TmaKvfoLo5jtNAoWw
https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/fStCX6RXmgxkTBe73/towards-a-weaker-longtermism#aYW8s8mY2brTvGNJX
Maybe Torres doesn’t deserve direct engagement even if some of his concerns do (or maybe he does), but it seems hard to deny that its publication had some non-trivial impact on the internal conversations of the movement, including in some ways there was already an appetite for. Though again I can’t expect more direct engagement (especially from those personally attacked), it does seem to me more thorough, direct engagement from prominent figures would have been better in many ways than most of the actual reaction.”
I mostly agree, but the revision of the Longtermism white paper from the original “work in progress” version seems like exactly the type of response to some of the early claims you’re requesting—see the discussion on fanaticism. And given how recent all of this is, further responses could still be forthcoming, as these types of conversations take time.