Edit: I think that Neel’s comment is basically just a better version of the stuff I was trying to say. (On the object level I’m a little more sympathetic than him to ways in which Mechanize might be good, although I don’t really buy the story to that end that I’ve seen you present.)
Wanting to note that on my impressions, and setting aside who is correct on the object-level question of whether Mechanize’s work is good for the world:
My best read of the situation is that Matthew has acted very reasonably (according to his beliefs), and that Holly has let herself down a bit
I believe that Holly honestly feels that Matthew is a sellout and a traitor; however, I don’t think that this is substantiated by reasonable readings of the facts, and I think this is the kind of accusation which it is socially corrosive to make publicly based on feelings
On handling object-level disagreements about what’s crucial to do in the world …
I think that EA-writ-large should be endorsing methodology more than conclusions
Inevitably we will have cases where people have strong earnest beliefs about what’s good to do that point in conflicting directions
I think that we need to support people in assessing the state of evidence and then acting on their own beliefs (hegemony of majority opinion seems kinda terrible)
Of course people should be encouraged to beware unilateralism, but I don’t think that can extend to “never do things other people think are actively destructive”
It’s important to me that EA has space for earnest disagreements
I therefore think that we should have something like “civilized society” norms, which constrain actions
Especially (but not only!) those which would be harmful to the ability for the group to have high-quality discourse
cf. SBF’s actions, which I think were indefensible even if he earnestly believed them to be the best thing
Edit: I think that Neel’s comment is basically just a better version of the stuff I was trying to say. (On the object level I’m a little more sympathetic than him to ways in which Mechanize might be good, although I don’t really buy the story to that end that I’ve seen you present.)
Wanting to note that on my impressions, and setting aside who is correct on the object-level question of whether Mechanize’s work is good for the world:My best read of the situation is that Matthew has acted very reasonably (according to his beliefs), and that Holly has let herself down a bitI believe that Holly honestly feels that Matthew is a sellout and a traitor; however, I don’t think that this is substantiated by reasonable readings of the facts, and I think this is the kind of accusation which it is socially corrosive to make publicly based on feelingsOn handling object-level disagreements about what’s crucial to do in the world …I think that EA-writ-large should be endorsingmethodologymore thanconclusionsInevitably we will have cases where people have strong earnest beliefs about what’s good to do that point in conflicting directionsI think that we need to support people in assessing the state of evidence and then acting on their own beliefs (hegemony of majority opinion seems kinda terrible)Of course people should be encouraged to beware unilateralism, but I don’t think that can extend to “never do things other people think are actively destructive”It’s important to me that EA has space for earnest disagreementsI therefore think that we should have something like “civilized society” norms, which constrain actionsEspecially (but not only!) those which would be harmful to the ability for the group to have high-quality discoursecf. SBF’s actions, which I think were indefensible even if he earnestly believed them to be the best thing(Some discussion onhow norms help to contain naive utilitarianism)I feel that Holly’s tweet was (somewhat) norm-violating; and kind of angry that Matthew is the main person defending himself here