I think coming back to this, my point isn’t straightforwardly fair. My post above uses a lot of evidence in a way that makes it seem like the point is very obvious.
I think that bars like “does the person have public writing showing they deeply understand EA principles” are generally pretty decent and often have worked decently well.
The case with SBF does seem extremely unusual to me. Protecting against it isn’t just some “obvious set of regular measures”. It might take a fair deal of thought and effort.
I think that we should be thinking about how to that thought of effort. I think we should be working to find and assume ways of verification that would have at least caught some lite-SBF.
So, the example of SBF seemed too good to not share, but it is extreme, so can’t be taken too much as a typical example to be worried about.
I still think that we should set the bar higher than a few blog posts for situations like this though, and assume that Will would agree. (He meant this much more as a quick public statement, and not real evidence of innocence to EAs, I assume)
I think coming back to this, my point isn’t straightforwardly fair. My post above uses a lot of evidence in a way that makes it seem like the point is very obvious.
I think that bars like “does the person have public writing showing they deeply understand EA principles” are generally pretty decent and often have worked decently well.
The case with SBF does seem extremely unusual to me. Protecting against it isn’t just some “obvious set of regular measures”. It might take a fair deal of thought and effort.
I think that we should be thinking about how to that thought of effort. I think we should be working to find and assume ways of verification that would have at least caught some lite-SBF.
So, the example of SBF seemed too good to not share, but it is extreme, so can’t be taken too much as a typical example to be worried about.
I still think that we should set the bar higher than a few blog posts for situations like this though, and assume that Will would agree. (He meant this much more as a quick public statement, and not real evidence of innocence to EAs, I assume)