I think many newer EAs will not be tuned in to insiders’ credences. The absence of discussion creates the impression that credences are low. (My credence is pretty high, maybe >50%)
Good analysis of whether this was a lab leak could move the needle for stakeholders who aren’t convinced lab leaks are a serious concern
Public discussion around methodology to assess whether something was a lab leak can be very educational
Perhaps most interestingly is how various big stakeholders are dealing with the lab leak hypothesis: e.g. China didn’t cooperate (expected), but Chinese scientists also published an article stating they don’t believe the Wuhan wet market was the source. Many players in the NIH played an obfuscating role, which was surprising to me. There’s also a lot of insights into the incentive structures that lead to this kind of dangerous research being conducted. It’s very helpful to see how those structures play out in reality
I think there are a lot of good reasons:
I think many newer EAs will not be tuned in to insiders’ credences. The absence of discussion creates the impression that credences are low. (My credence is pretty high, maybe >50%)
Good analysis of whether this was a lab leak could move the needle for stakeholders who aren’t convinced lab leaks are a serious concern
Public discussion around methodology to assess whether something was a lab leak can be very educational
Perhaps most interestingly is how various big stakeholders are dealing with the lab leak hypothesis: e.g. China didn’t cooperate (expected), but Chinese scientists also published an article stating they don’t believe the Wuhan wet market was the source. Many players in the NIH played an obfuscating role, which was surprising to me. There’s also a lot of insights into the incentive structures that lead to this kind of dangerous research being conducted. It’s very helpful to see how those structures play out in reality