Thanks for writing this and posting it—it is surprising that a text which is increasingly becoming a foundational piece of ‘introductory’ reading for people interested in x-risk reduction (and TAI more specifically) hasn’t been rigorously or critically examined to the extent we’d probably want it to. Hopefully there are more to come after this.
On a different note @mods—it doesn’t seem like tagging this as a community post is appropriate, and would lead to fewer people (who’d probably want to see it) from seeing it. It might even be worth posting on lesswrong if you’re feeling brave!
@mods—it doesn’t seem like tagging this as a community post is appropriate, and would lead to fewer people (who’d probably want to see it) from seeing it.
It was tagged community by the author and, after a quick read, I agree with keeping the tag.
I agree that if the post was only about criticism of Karnofsky’s Most Important Century series, it definitely shouldn’t be tagged community. But the post seems to me to be in large part about the “intellectual and critical standards within the EA/LW/AF ecosystem”, especially (but not exclusively) in the concluding remarks.
I think that a post that’s not entirely about biorisk, but significantly touches on biorisk, should be tagged biorisk, and that the same applies in this case about “community”.
I agree about your biorisk point. However, tagging community has the additional effect of greatly reducing visibility which is fine when the content is primarily about the community but not here where the community aspect is a collary to the main point critiquing a fundamental text in EA thinking.
Yeah, it wasn’t too clear to me how to think about using the community tag but I decided to go with it in the end. This exchange however makes it look like people tend to disagree and think I shouldn’t have used it. Hmmm, I’m not sure.
Thanks for writing this and posting it—it is surprising that a text which is increasingly becoming a foundational piece of ‘introductory’ reading for people interested in x-risk reduction (and TAI more specifically) hasn’t been rigorously or critically examined to the extent we’d probably want it to. Hopefully there are more to come after this.
On a different note @mods—it doesn’t seem like tagging this as a community post is appropriate, and would lead to fewer people (who’d probably want to see it) from seeing it. It might even be worth posting on lesswrong if you’re feeling brave!
It was tagged community by the author and, after a quick read, I agree with keeping the tag.
I agree that if the post was only about criticism of Karnofsky’s Most Important Century series, it definitely shouldn’t be tagged community. But the post seems to me to be in large part about the “intellectual and critical standards within the EA/LW/AF ecosystem”, especially (but not exclusively) in the concluding remarks.
I think that a post that’s not entirely about biorisk, but significantly touches on biorisk, should be tagged biorisk, and that the same applies in this case about “community”.
I agree about your biorisk point. However, tagging community has the additional effect of greatly reducing visibility which is fine when the content is primarily about the community but not here where the community aspect is a collary to the main point critiquing a fundamental text in EA thinking.
Thanks for the comment.
Yeah, it wasn’t too clear to me how to think about using the community tag but I decided to go with it in the end. This exchange however makes it look like people tend to disagree and think I shouldn’t have used it. Hmmm, I’m not sure.