From where I sit -Itâs really hard to guess at all the details and relevant context of whatâs going on (which is why I feel a bit stupid commenting on it⊠but I guess I canât resist lol).
Is FHI the only org being subject to a hiring freeze? Or is the university/âphilosophy department cutting costs in many places? Are conflicts with the philosophy department basically FHIâs fault? Or is the bureaucracy dysfunctional/âunfriendly to FHI in ways which made it impossible to keep them happy without making other costly tradeoffs? If Nick steps down as director, is there somebody else waiting in the wings who is likely to do a better job and successfully resolve the issue?
The only thing I know for sure looking in from the outside is that FHI has been doing really really great work đ€·
Are conflicts with the philosophy department basically FHIâs fault?
I think this is a relevant question, but I donât think itâs the whole question (not that you were claiming it was). As an outsider who has heard some stories and has some guesses, I would conjecture that the University is (at least sometimes) unreasonable and bureaucratic, but nevertheless, if you want to be a director of a university-affiliated research group, âmanaging the relationship with the university, even when they are being unreasonableâ is absolutely a core competency of the job, and itâs not one that Nick has had much luck with.
My understanding is that this is indeed unique to FHI, unfortunately. This is maybe why FHI and GPI make for a compelling comparisonâboth are EA-affiliated, both are in the University of Oxford. While working with a University is never easy, GPI seems totally fine and indeed does continue to hire, run events, etc. FHI does not.
I donât know about the alternatives to Bostrom or how likely they would be to change the situation. Nathan makes a good point that perhaps prediction markets could play a role here. I generally think that, given I run an EA research org that could be construed as competing with FHI for funding/âtalent/âinfluence/âetc. I shouldnât really engage in explicitly calling for Bostrom to step down or help analyze the alternatives. But hopefully I can more generally help people think through the situation more clearly as a whole. I mainly wrote what I wrote because the comment made me angry enough that I felt like I had to.
Relevant context is that FHI had a hiring freeze and was dying before the apology. And yes, itâs only FHI. There was some kind of cutting corners to avoid bureaucracy and the department got mad. Itâs possible that with another leader FHI would be able to be rehabilitated in the department. Nobody can say for sure, but their best bet would be to go with someone willing to play by the book, and it would be odd for the department to have a grudge against new leadership.
From where I sit -Itâs really hard to guess at all the details and relevant context of whatâs going on (which is why I feel a bit stupid commenting on it⊠but I guess I canât resist lol).
Is FHI the only org being subject to a hiring freeze? Or is the university/âphilosophy department cutting costs in many places? Are conflicts with the philosophy department basically FHIâs fault? Or is the bureaucracy dysfunctional/âunfriendly to FHI in ways which made it impossible to keep them happy without making other costly tradeoffs? If Nick steps down as director, is there somebody else waiting in the wings who is likely to do a better job and successfully resolve the issue?
The only thing I know for sure looking in from the outside is that FHI has been doing really really great work đ€·
I think this is a relevant question, but I donât think itâs the whole question (not that you were claiming it was). As an outsider who has heard some stories and has some guesses, I would conjecture that the University is (at least sometimes) unreasonable and bureaucratic, but nevertheless, if you want to be a director of a university-affiliated research group, âmanaging the relationship with the university, even when they are being unreasonableâ is absolutely a core competency of the job, and itâs not one that Nick has had much luck with.
My understanding is that this is indeed unique to FHI, unfortunately. This is maybe why FHI and GPI make for a compelling comparisonâboth are EA-affiliated, both are in the University of Oxford. While working with a University is never easy, GPI seems totally fine and indeed does continue to hire, run events, etc. FHI does not.
I donât know about the alternatives to Bostrom or how likely they would be to change the situation. Nathan makes a good point that perhaps prediction markets could play a role here. I generally think that, given I run an EA research org that could be construed as competing with FHI for funding/âtalent/âinfluence/âetc. I shouldnât really engage in explicitly calling for Bostrom to step down or help analyze the alternatives. But hopefully I can more generally help people think through the situation more clearly as a whole. I mainly wrote what I wrote because the comment made me angry enough that I felt like I had to.
Relevant context is that FHI had a hiring freeze and was dying before the apology. And yes, itâs only FHI. There was some kind of cutting corners to avoid bureaucracy and the department got mad. Itâs possible that with another leader FHI would be able to be rehabilitated in the department. Nobody can say for sure, but their best bet would be to go with someone willing to play by the book, and it would be odd for the department to have a grudge against new leadership.