I found the hypothetical about NYT and CEA helpful for reasoning from first principles about acceptable journalistic practice. I came out of it empathizing more with Nonlinearās feelings before and during the publication of Ben Paceās article than I previously had.
Regarding Ben Paceās explicit seeking of negative information and unwillingness to delay posting, you updated me from thinking of these as simple mistakes to now considering them egregiously bad.
Great point that an article author canāt just state their disclaimers at the top and expect readers to rationally recalibrate themselves and ignore the vibes of the evidenceās presentation.
I found it hard to update throughout this story because the presentation of evidence from both parties was (understandably) biased. As you pointed out, āSharing Information About Nonlinearā presented sometimes true claims in a way which makes the reader unsympathetic to Nonlinear. Nonlinearās response presented compelling rebuttals in a way which was calculated to increase the readerās sympathy for Nonlinear. Both articles intentionally mix the evidence and the vibes in a way which makes it difficult to readers to separate the two. (I donāt blame Nonlinearās response for this as much, since it was tit for tat.)
Thanks again for putting so much time and effort into this, and Iām excited to see what you write next.
Iāll just quickly say that my experience of this saga was more like this:
Before BP post: NL are a sort of atypical, low structure EA group, doing entrepreneurial and coordination focused work that I think is probably positive impact. After BP post: NL are actually pretty exploitative and probably net negative overall. Iāll wait to hear their response, but I doubt it will change my mind very much. After NL post: NL are probably not exploitative. They made some big mistakes (and had bad luck) with some risks they took in hiring and working unconventionally. I think they are probably still likely to have a positive impact on expectation. I think that they have been treated harshly. After this post: I update to be feeling more confident that this wasnāt a fair way to judge NL and that these sorts of posts/āinvestigations shouldnāt be a community norm.
Insightful and well-argued post!
I found the hypothetical about NYT and CEA helpful for reasoning from first principles about acceptable journalistic practice. I came out of it empathizing more with Nonlinearās feelings before and during the publication of Ben Paceās article than I previously had.
Regarding Ben Paceās explicit seeking of negative information and unwillingness to delay posting, you updated me from thinking of these as simple mistakes to now considering them egregiously bad.
Great point that an article author canāt just state their disclaimers at the top and expect readers to rationally recalibrate themselves and ignore the vibes of the evidenceās presentation.
I found it hard to update throughout this story because the presentation of evidence from both parties was (understandably) biased. As you pointed out, āSharing Information About Nonlinearā presented sometimes true claims in a way which makes the reader unsympathetic to Nonlinear. Nonlinearās response presented compelling rebuttals in a way which was calculated to increase the readerās sympathy for Nonlinear. Both articles intentionally mix the evidence and the vibes in a way which makes it difficult to readers to separate the two. (I donāt blame Nonlinearās response for this as much, since it was tit for tat.)
Thanks again for putting so much time and effort into this, and Iām excited to see what you write next.
Iāll just quickly say that my experience of this saga was more like this:
Before BP post: NL are a sort of atypical, low structure EA group, doing entrepreneurial and coordination focused work that I think is probably positive impact.
After BP post: NL are actually pretty exploitative and probably net negative overall. Iāll wait to hear their response, but I doubt it will change my mind very much.
After NL post: NL are probably not exploitative. They made some big mistakes (and had bad luck) with some risks they took in hiring and working unconventionally. I think they are probably still likely to have a positive impact on expectation. I think that they have been treated harshly.
After this post: I update to be feeling more confident that this wasnāt a fair way to judge NL and that these sorts of posts/āinvestigations shouldnāt be a community norm.