I agree with your assessment, but “oh yeah, we share the same principles, but we aren’t actually part of that movement at all.” still seems like a warm change since “I’m not the expert on effective altruism. I don’t identify with that terminology. My impression is that it’s a bit of an outdated term.”.
Agreed, I think it’s reasonably read as saying “we’re ‘lowercase’ effective altruists, even though we don’t identify with the community or organizations.” It’s probably not helpful to speculate further here (is this just the optimal PR play? or are they being honest?), but regardless it seems clearly better than whatever was happening in that Wired article.
I guess my point was that the underlying position hasn’t changed yet. This is just PR efforts. The people who are close to money, do not discuss anything publicly to “inform” the public; it is all to shape public opinion on certain things. But yeah, you are right in the sense that semantically the two statements are different.
I agree with your assessment, but “oh yeah, we share the same principles, but we aren’t actually part of that movement at all.” still seems like a warm change since “I’m not the expert on effective altruism. I don’t identify with that terminology. My impression is that it’s a bit of an outdated term.”.
Not a huge change perhaps, but still different.
Agreed, I think it’s reasonably read as saying “we’re ‘lowercase’ effective altruists, even though we don’t identify with the community or organizations.” It’s probably not helpful to speculate further here (is this just the optimal PR play? or are they being honest?), but regardless it seems clearly better than whatever was happening in that Wired article.
I guess my point was that the underlying position hasn’t changed yet. This is just PR efforts. The people who are close to money, do not discuss anything publicly to “inform” the public; it is all to shape public opinion on certain things. But yeah, you are right in the sense that semantically the two statements are different.