Ben I donât want to discuss this any more than you do. Iâd prefer to never have to discuss it like they apparently get to do on LessWrong. However, people who think this research is discredited keep bringing it up, which repeatedly damages the epistemics of the community.
Edit: I feel that my writing was very poor quality here, and apologize for that. Thanks to others for pointing out how different writing needs to be on the forum from other writing. This phrasing I used later in the discussion is a better worded version of what I was trying to say in the next paragraph: The case for how much the fallout from the apology should influence our decisions rests on the case for how justified the fallout is. If it is not justified, many of us feel that we should find another solution instead of compromising our integrity by giving into political pressure. If the fallout is not justified, many of us believe that most of the content of this post is not very important.
Original Paragraph: The author chose to devote a large majority of his post to this topic. As others have pointed out, he overstated his case for how Bostromâs apology negatively influences his ability cooperate with EA. I believe this could be an example of how the weakening of empistemics because people are starting to work so hard to ignore research that makes them uncomfortable could spread to other topics. The inaccuracy of the authorâs statement also makes the preserving epistemic integrity case for standing up for Bostrom (possibly via Habrykaâs suggestion for example) much stronger. Therefore this is highly relevant to the post.
Rereading it, I feel like almost none of the discussion of the apology in the OP is contingent on whether the research is discredited or not. If you persuade the OP or other people on the forum that the research is not discredited, it will not solve the problems Nick faces as director.
I believe the value EA contributes relative to other social justice movements is our ability to judge research on its merits no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel. Iâve never seen anything like it in the others Iâve been a part of. This is how we discovered that donating abroad is better at preventing death than donating locally, that AI and biosecurity were bigger risks before our views became mainstream, and a host of other topics. I believe losing this value would be worse than losing a relationship with Oxford University or losing funding from one donor. As the response on the forum and the author of the CEA statementâs correction of their statement shows, the case for it damaging our ability to find new collaborators and funders is weak. The essential role epistemic integrity plays in our movement is the biggest reason that to me and many others the merits of the case for/âagainst the apology email raised in this post are more important that some logistical problems it created.
I feel like you and Ben are talking past each other; you claim that, like Ben, you donât want to discuss this. Yet you donât respond to Billâs comment about how the problems Nick faces are not contingent on whether the research is discredited. Your point about the value EA contributes is also irrelevant, unless youâre making a claim here that Bostrom is providing this value and that this value is stronger than the value of his counterfactual replacement.
Yes I agree we are talking past each other, and tried to clarify that in a comment that seems to have gotten overlooked because it wasnât upvoted. I am not arguing with people like Ben who believe he should go regardless of the apology and the logistical challenges it may have caused. Bostrom may deserve to go for all I know. As I mentioned in my original comment, I have no opinion about it overall. I am only arguing that the apology and fallout from it are not a good reason to think he should go. I am not trying to distract from the non-apology discourse. I intended my original comment to be a small addition to much more important points others are making.
Many people (such as the author) feel the apology and fallout are a good reason or even the best reason for him to go , so my point is worth making. The author himself said he believed the views expressed in the apology such as the one I am addressing are âdisqualifying views for someone in his position as Director.â (regardless of the fallout) .
Even if someone were just as suited as Bostrom, the act of dismissing him based on the fallout from the apology would be a violation of our epistemic standards. Therefore he is better than a hypothetical identical counterfactual on this issue.
If Bostrom stepped down for unrelated reasons, I am arguing that people should expect a statement from officials in the community that it wasnât because of pressure due to the apology.
Iâm not sure who Bill is, but my entire intention with the comment you are responding to was to address the argument you mention him making. I believe the case that the fallout should influence our decisions rests on the case that the fallout is justified. If it is not, we should find another solution instead of compromising our integrity.
Ben I donât want to discuss this any more than you do. Iâd prefer to never have to discuss it like they apparently get to do on LessWrong. However, people who think this research is discredited keep bringing it up, which repeatedly damages the epistemics of the community.
Edit: I feel that my writing was very poor quality here, and apologize for that. Thanks to others for pointing out how different writing needs to be on the forum from other writing. This phrasing I used later in the discussion is a better worded version of what I was trying to say in the next paragraph: The case for how much the fallout from the apology should influence our decisions rests on the case for how justified the fallout is. If it is not justified, many of us feel that we should find another solution instead of compromising our integrity by giving into political pressure. If the fallout is not justified, many of us believe that most of the content of this post is not very important.
Original Paragraph: The author chose to devote a large majority of his post to this topic. As others have pointed out, he overstated his case for how Bostromâs apology negatively influences his ability cooperate with EA. I believe this could be an example of how the weakening of empistemics because people are starting to work so hard to ignore research that makes them uncomfortable could spread to other topics. The inaccuracy of the authorâs statement also makes the preserving epistemic integrity case for standing up for Bostrom (possibly via Habrykaâs suggestion for example) much stronger. Therefore this is highly relevant to the post.
Rereading it, I feel like almost none of the discussion of the apology in the OP is contingent on whether the research is discredited or not. If you persuade the OP or other people on the forum that the research is not discredited, it will not solve the problems Nick faces as director.
I believe the value EA contributes relative to other social justice movements is our ability to judge research on its merits no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel. Iâve never seen anything like it in the others Iâve been a part of. This is how we discovered that donating abroad is better at preventing death than donating locally, that AI and biosecurity were bigger risks before our views became mainstream, and a host of other topics. I believe losing this value would be worse than losing a relationship with Oxford University or losing funding from one donor. As the response on the forum and the author of the CEA statementâs correction of their statement shows, the case for it damaging our ability to find new collaborators and funders is weak. The essential role epistemic integrity plays in our movement is the biggest reason that to me and many others the merits of the case for/âagainst the apology email raised in this post are more important that some logistical problems it created.
I feel like you and Ben are talking past each other; you claim that, like Ben, you donât want to discuss this. Yet you donât respond to Billâs comment about how the problems Nick faces are not contingent on whether the research is discredited. Your point about the value EA contributes is also irrelevant, unless youâre making a claim here that Bostrom is providing this value and that this value is stronger than the value of his counterfactual replacement.
Yes I agree we are talking past each other, and tried to clarify that in a comment that seems to have gotten overlooked because it wasnât upvoted. I am not arguing with people like Ben who believe he should go regardless of the apology and the logistical challenges it may have caused. Bostrom may deserve to go for all I know. As I mentioned in my original comment, I have no opinion about it overall. I am only arguing that the apology and fallout from it are not a good reason to think he should go. I am not trying to distract from the non-apology discourse. I intended my original comment to be a small addition to much more important points others are making.
Many people (such as the author) feel the apology and fallout are a good reason or even the best reason for him to go , so my point is worth making. The author himself said he believed the views expressed in the apology such as the one I am addressing are âdisqualifying views for someone in his position as Director.â (regardless of the fallout) .
Even if someone were just as suited as Bostrom, the act of dismissing him based on the fallout from the apology would be a violation of our epistemic standards. Therefore he is better than a hypothetical identical counterfactual on this issue.
If Bostrom stepped down for unrelated reasons, I am arguing that people should expect a statement from officials in the community that it wasnât because of pressure due to the apology.
Iâm not sure who Bill is, but my entire intention with the comment you are responding to was to address the argument you mention him making. I believe the case that the fallout should influence our decisions rests on the case that the fallout is justified. If it is not, we should find another solution instead of compromising our integrity.