Totally agree that this āhas real implications for the movementās future, including selection effects on people who may become more uncertain about the views that intellectual leaders of the EA/ālongtermism movement hold (and by extension, its intellectual foundations), whether EA is a community for āpeople like themā, and whether EA is a movement that is well-equipped to preserve a future for all of humanity.ā Iām worried that this statement will deter people from collaborating with or joining AI labs, for example.
I think this could have been avoided if more EA orgs, including FHI, had some kind of PR function instead of leaving all the heavy lifting to CEA. Iāve said as much here.
Why is this comment being downvoted? I can understand the disagree votes, Iām uncertain whether I agree myself, but it doesnāt seem to disrespect any forum norms or to be argued in bad faith.
I didnāt downvote, but I think itās bad to focus on the optical concerns over the object level concerns about the statement. āThis statement if bad because it might reduce engagement with EAā may be true but itās probably not the first order badness, just like the first order badness of FTX was fraud and not the harms to EA.
There is the other side as well: not only is this bad because one person expressed racist sentiment, but it is particularly bad because that person is considered a thought leader in EA and so this could make the EA community a considerably less welcoming environment for black people ( although I wouldnāt like to speak on their behalf)
Correct. It seems strange to me that thereās a lot of whitewashing happening here. Instead of viewing the situation through an objective lens, some are glossing over the fact that he didnāt truly apologize.
He began his letter with āBut I fear that selected pieces of the most offensive stuff will be extracted, maliciously framed and interpreted, and used in smear campaigns,ā expressing a wish that this email had remained buried, rather than taking responsibility and not blaming the messenger. This is not an admission of wrongdoing; instead, it shows contempt for anyone asking him to take responsibility for his actions as an adult.
I think the point about PR resources was helpful (although I think they should not be paid by the organization in a case like this). This apology could have been done much better, in a way that would have been more effective in mitigating the harm Bostrom caused to Black people here. I donāt know him at all, but most people who just learned that someone is about to publish an expose about past misbehavior would benefit from someone to help them express their apology more effectively.
Many of us like to criticize PR as an industry, including me, but one of its benefits is that it gets someone who is not emotionally invested in the room in situations with high emotion and time pressure. That can help someone write the statement that they would have written if they had time and space to regain control of their emotions, which the modern news/āinfo cycle does not allow.
I think this could have been avoided if more EA orgs, including FHI, had some kind of PR function instead of leaving all the heavy lifting to CEA. Iāve said as much here.
Bostrom works for Oxford University who have a PR department. From his statement is seems unlikely to me, though that he asked them (or any other PR experts) for advice.
I am not sure I see running PR for something like this as a valid use of organizational resources. To use lawyer-speak, these Internet postings were way outside Bostromās scope of employment both substantively and temporally. Itās unclear why FHI or any other organization should have to devote resources to cleaning up after employees for non-work situations where the employee was clearly at fault.
I do think it would be helpful for there to be a list of various professionals, including PR folks, for EAs to call in various sorts of situations. But Bostrom should be paying for any PR help out of pocket.
Some thoughts:
Totally agree that this āhas real implications for the movementās future, including selection effects on people who may become more uncertain about the views that intellectual leaders of the EA/ālongtermism movement hold (and by extension, its intellectual foundations), whether EA is a community for āpeople like themā, and whether EA is a movement that is well-equipped to preserve a future for all of humanity.ā Iām worried that this statement will deter people from collaborating with or joining AI labs, for example.
I think this could have been avoided if more EA orgs, including FHI, had some kind of PR function instead of leaving all the heavy lifting to CEA. Iāve said as much here.
Why is this comment being downvoted? I can understand the disagree votes, Iām uncertain whether I agree myself, but it doesnāt seem to disrespect any forum norms or to be argued in bad faith.
I didnāt downvote, but I think itās bad to focus on the optical concerns over the object level concerns about the statement. āThis statement if bad because it might reduce engagement with EAā may be true but itās probably not the first order badness, just like the first order badness of FTX was fraud and not the harms to EA.
There is the other side as well: not only is this bad because one person expressed racist sentiment, but it is particularly bad because that person is considered a thought leader in EA and so this could make the EA community a considerably less welcoming environment for black people ( although I wouldnāt like to speak on their behalf)
Correct. It seems strange to me that thereās a lot of whitewashing happening here. Instead of viewing the situation through an objective lens, some are glossing over the fact that he didnāt truly apologize.
He began his letter with āBut I fear that selected pieces of the most offensive stuff will be extracted, maliciously framed and interpreted, and used in smear campaigns,ā expressing a wish that this email had remained buried, rather than taking responsibility and not blaming the messenger. This is not an admission of wrongdoing; instead, it shows contempt for anyone asking him to take responsibility for his actions as an adult.
I think the point about PR resources was helpful (although I think they should not be paid by the organization in a case like this). This apology could have been done much better, in a way that would have been more effective in mitigating the harm Bostrom caused to Black people here. I donāt know him at all, but most people who just learned that someone is about to publish an expose about past misbehavior would benefit from someone to help them express their apology more effectively.
Many of us like to criticize PR as an industry, including me, but one of its benefits is that it gets someone who is not emotionally invested in the room in situations with high emotion and time pressure. That can help someone write the statement that they would have written if they had time and space to regain control of their emotions, which the modern news/āinfo cycle does not allow.
I think this could have been avoided if more EA orgs, including FHI, had some kind of PR function instead of leaving all the heavy lifting to CEA. Iāve said as much here.
Bostrom works for Oxford University who have a PR department. From his statement is seems unlikely to me, though that he asked them (or any other PR experts) for advice.
I am not sure I see running PR for something like this as a valid use of organizational resources. To use lawyer-speak, these Internet postings were way outside Bostromās scope of employment both substantively and temporally. Itās unclear why FHI or any other organization should have to devote resources to cleaning up after employees for non-work situations where the employee was clearly at fault.
I do think it would be helpful for there to be a list of various professionals, including PR folks, for EAs to call in various sorts of situations. But Bostrom should be paying for any PR help out of pocket.
Or, alternatively, if EAs stopped prioritising āopenness to all ideasā above ādisavowing people with hurtful and dangerous viewsā.