Thanks for this, I appreciate that someone read everything in depth and responded.
I feel I should say something because I defended Nonlinear (NL) in previous comments, and it feels like I am ignoring the updated evidence/debate if I don’t.
I also really don’t want to get sucked in, so I will try to keep it short:
How I feel I previously said that I was very concerned after Ben’s post, then persuaded by the response from NL that they are not net negative.
Since then, I realized that there have been more negative views expressed towards NL than I realized. I have been somewhat influenced by the credibility of some of the people who disagree with me.
Having said that, the current evidence is still not enough to persuade me that NL will be net-negative if involved in EA in the future. They may have made some misjudgments, but they have paid a very high price, and it seems relatively easy to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
(I also feel frustrated that I have put so much time into this and wish it was not a public trial of sorts)
I agree with this point:
”An effective altruist organization needs to be actively good.”
BUT I am not sure if you can reasonably conclude that NL is not actively good from the current balance of evidence because it is fuzzy and incomplete. Little effort has been invested in figuring out their positive impacts and weighing them against their negative impacts.
Contrary to the post, I expect that Kat and Emerson probably do agree with this now (as general principles) after their failed experiment here:
People should be paid for their work in money and not in ziplining trips.
A person should not simultaneously be your friend, your housemate, your mentee, an employee of the charity you founded, and the person you pay to clean your house. Nonprofits should follow generally accepted accounting principles and file legally required paperwork. Employers should not ask their employees to commit felonies unrelated to the job they were hired for.[16]
I disagree somewhat with Ozy/Jeff on this: ”Much of Kat and Emerson’s effective altruist work focuses on mentoring young effective altruists and incubating organizations. I believe the balance of the evidence—much of it from their own defense of their actions—shows that they are hilariously ill-suited for that job. Grants to Nonlinear to do mentoring or incubation are likely to backfire. Grantmakers should also consider the risk of subsidizing Nonlinear’s mentoring and incubation programs when they give grants to Nonlinear for other programs (e.g. its podcast).”
NL’s misjudgements here show a really bad fit for their chosen role in connecting and mentoring people.”—
again, we are just hearing about the bad stuff here from a small minority of people involved in a program. What about the various people who had good experiences? We might be considering less than a percent of the available feedback, etc.
I think it is fairer to say that they made a mistake here that reflects badly and raised concern etc. That we should investigate more and be concerned maybe, but not that we should have strong confidence etc.
I think I agree with Jeff on this: ”We need to do the best we have with the information we have, put things together, gather more information as needed, and make a coherent picture.”
What I therefore think should happen next: NL should acknowledge any mistakes, say what they will do differently in the future, and be able to continue being part of the community while continuing to be scrutinized accordingly (however that proceeds).
I’d like people to be more cautious than previously in their engagements with them, but not to write them off completely or assume they are bad actors. (EA) organizations/people can and do make mistakes and then improve and avoid those mistakes in the future.
Thanks for this, I appreciate that someone read everything in depth and responded.
I feel I should say something because I defended Nonlinear (NL) in previous comments, and it feels like I am ignoring the updated evidence/debate if I don’t.
I also really don’t want to get sucked in, so I will try to keep it short:
How I feel
I previously said that I was very concerned after Ben’s post, then persuaded by the response from NL that they are not net negative.
Since then, I realized that there have been more negative views expressed towards NL than I realized. I have been somewhat influenced by the credibility of some of the people who disagree with me.
Having said that, the current evidence is still not enough to persuade me that NL will be net-negative if involved in EA in the future. They may have made some misjudgments, but they have paid a very high price, and it seems relatively easy to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
(I also feel frustrated that I have put so much time into this and wish it was not a public trial of sorts)
I agree with this point:
”An effective altruist organization needs to be actively good.”
BUT I am not sure if you can reasonably conclude that NL is not actively good from the current balance of evidence because it is fuzzy and incomplete. Little effort has been invested in figuring out their positive impacts and weighing them against their negative impacts.
Contrary to the post, I expect that Kat and Emerson probably do agree with this now (as general principles) after their failed experiment here:
People should be paid for their work in money and not in ziplining trips.
A person should not simultaneously be your friend, your housemate, your mentee, an employee of the charity you founded, and the person you pay to clean your house.
Nonprofits should follow generally accepted accounting principles and file legally required paperwork.
Employers should not ask their employees to commit felonies unrelated to the job they were hired for.[16]
I disagree somewhat with Ozy/Jeff on this:
”Much of Kat and Emerson’s effective altruist work focuses on mentoring young effective altruists and incubating organizations. I believe the balance of the evidence—much of it from their own defense of their actions—shows that they are hilariously ill-suited for that job. Grants to Nonlinear to do mentoring or incubation are likely to backfire. Grantmakers should also consider the risk of subsidizing Nonlinear’s mentoring and incubation programs when they give grants to Nonlinear for other programs (e.g. its podcast).”
NL’s misjudgements here show a really bad fit for their chosen role in connecting and mentoring people.”—
again, we are just hearing about the bad stuff here from a small minority of people involved in a program. What about the various people who had good experiences? We might be considering less than a percent of the available feedback, etc.
I think it is fairer to say that they made a mistake here that reflects badly and raised concern etc. That we should investigate more and be concerned maybe, but not that we should have strong confidence etc.
I think I agree with Jeff on this:
”We need to do the best we have with the information we have, put things together, gather more information as needed, and make a coherent picture.”
What I therefore think should happen next:
NL should acknowledge any mistakes, say what they will do differently in the future, and be able to continue being part of the community while continuing to be scrutinized accordingly (however that proceeds).
I’d like people to be more cautious than previously in their engagements with them, but not to write them off completely or assume they are bad actors. (EA) organizations/people can and do make mistakes and then improve and avoid those mistakes in the future.