I treat posts based on their content rather than the author. I have no idea who different posters are, nor do I care much on issues unrelated to specific experience or expertise.
You are correct that my question was uncharitable and posted in frustration at a comment that I found detrimental to discussion. I should have said, and pose this as an open question:
I agree that applying cost-benefit analysis in a manner consistent with EA principles to areas like zoning, drug approval, and nuclear energy are good. I do not agree that increased credentialism or additional taboos are beneficial to the stated goals of EA, for the reasons outlined in the article.
I would ask that you state specifically what you find horrible, what cause areas should be exempt from cost-benefit analysis, and why? The current comment, as posted, does not contribute to meaningful discussion by way of its vagueness.
To be clear I strong downvoted your comment for the reasons I posted. I think my main disagreement with Hanania’s post is that it aims to be persuasive rather than explanatory in a way that I think are the hallmarks of politics being a mind-killer. I also downvote tribalist “wokism” posts for the same reason.
I also think anti-wokism is detrimental to object level goals with regards to alignment as we’ve currently seen the discourse be eaten alive in a miasma of “alignment is just about censorship” and “EAs are right wing and appropriated the work of bias people and called it AI Safety”.
I do empathise your comment came from a place of frustration but I don’t think it’s a productive one nonetheless.
Strong downvoted because it’s obviously a troll question on face but even rhetorically dumb because you asked it of an Israeli math olympiad medalist.
I treat posts based on their content rather than the author. I have no idea who different posters are, nor do I care much on issues unrelated to specific experience or expertise.
You are correct that my question was uncharitable and posted in frustration at a comment that I found detrimental to discussion. I should have said, and pose this as an open question:
I agree that applying cost-benefit analysis in a manner consistent with EA principles to areas like zoning, drug approval, and nuclear energy are good. I do not agree that increased credentialism or additional taboos are beneficial to the stated goals of EA, for the reasons outlined in the article.
I would ask that you state specifically what you find horrible, what cause areas should be exempt from cost-benefit analysis, and why? The current comment, as posted, does not contribute to meaningful discussion by way of its vagueness.
To be clear I strong downvoted your comment for the reasons I posted. I think my main disagreement with Hanania’s post is that it aims to be persuasive rather than explanatory in a way that I think are the hallmarks of politics being a mind-killer. I also downvote tribalist “wokism” posts for the same reason.
I also think anti-wokism is detrimental to object level goals with regards to alignment as we’ve currently seen the discourse be eaten alive in a miasma of “alignment is just about censorship” and “EAs are right wing and appropriated the work of bias people and called it AI Safety”.
I do empathise your comment came from a place of frustration but I don’t think it’s a productive one nonetheless.