Why did the EA organizations find it disappointing? I’m afraid you’re going to say they didn’t like that peer reviewers didn’t agree with them
Nope. There have been a variety of issues. One is speed, and another is the difficulty of finding relevant experts. Thinking back to MIRI’s experience with the Damascus paper, my recollection (possibly incorrect) is their final conclusion was the getting published in a good journal took a lot of time, didn’t really improve the fundamental quality of the work much, and also didn’t yield a lot of prestige/outreach benefits.
Very few people outside of EA consider EA’s idiosyncratic ideas to be serious and credible. What is the strategy for gaining credibility outside the EA echo chamber? Right now, it seems to be a media strategy that counts on people not fact checking EA’s messaging.
Come on, I understand you have objections to METR’s methodology—though to my knowledge you have not published those objections in a peer-reviewed journal—but blithely accusing them of a deliberate strategy of misinformation seems low.
Nope. There have been a variety of issues. One is speed, and another is the difficulty of finding relevant experts. Thinking back to MIRI’s experience with the Damascus paper, my recollection (possibly incorrect) is their final conclusion was the getting published in a good journal took a lot of time, didn’t really improve the fundamental quality of the work much, and also didn’t yield a lot of prestige/outreach benefits.
Come on, I understand you have objections to METR’s methodology—though to my knowledge you have not published those objections in a peer-reviewed journal—but blithely accusing them of a deliberate strategy of misinformation seems low.