Yeah, I’m on the fence here. On the one hand, PR matters. No matter how nuanced, Twitter people will misconstrue this as eugenics/climate destroyers, and that’s bad news. Facts or rationality do not matter to most people, but they have most of the power. EA is already a weird movement, and it needs to pick it’s battles carefully.
On the other hand, you are correct in your post.
I’d say delete it, but I really wish we could use a classification system for PR infohazards like this, so that illegible projects, ala the CIA’s projects, could be done without public eyes on the project. Something like “whether it’s likely to generate bad PR” would be classified as an infohazard until the project is complete, when we can declassify it from an infohazard list.
Yeah, I’m on the fence here. On the one hand, PR matters. No matter how nuanced, Twitter people will misconstrue this as eugenics/climate destroyers, and that’s bad news. Facts or rationality do not matter to most people, but they have most of the power. EA is already a weird movement, and it needs to pick it’s battles carefully.
On the other hand, you are correct in your post.
I’d say delete it, but I really wish we could use a classification system for PR infohazards like this, so that illegible projects, ala the CIA’s projects, could be done without public eyes on the project. Something like “whether it’s likely to generate bad PR” would be classified as an infohazard until the project is complete, when we can declassify it from an infohazard list.