It’s an interesting question whether orgs should respond to criticism posts like this.I think the benefits of responding possibly outweigh the harms.
Maybe higher experienced and knowlegable EAs feel comfortable to let these kind of posts slide, as they trust the orgs and people involved. Less experienced Forum peruses (people like me) who have less knowledge and EA background might find these kinds of posts disturbing and feel like a response is warranted to clear the air. For example even Habryka’s reply about the coffee table was fantastic and basically quashed that criticism. I feel it would have been even better if it had come from the org’s leaders.
It’s not only this post about Atlas. OpenPhil and others haven’t responded in depth to serious criticisms recently, nor have they clearly stated why not.
I Have listed potential benefits and harms of responding to weigh below. It’s hard to weight benefits vs harms,
Potential Benefits of responding - Quashing rumours early and quickly - Answering reasonable questions to set minds at ease. For example in ths case Explaining the EV calculations of why 50k was given wouldn’t be very hard I don’t think. It must be written somewhere, I would imagine they could probably almost copy paste the reasons. - Give confidence both within and outside the EA community that orgs are open to criticism and engaging with it.
Potental Harms of responding - Dragging out drama and making it even more higher profile by continuing unhelpful or even toxic conversations. - Giving weak criticisms increased airtime by responding rather than ignoring them - Making whoever responds a target for further grilling and stress. - Monetary/Time costs spent responding (I think these are often overstated though and can be easy to hide behind)
I’m sure there are many more benefits and harms as well. Although my instinct is that early, in-depth replies is the best way to respond I’m very uncertain.
Epistemic status: Very Uncertain
It’s an interesting question whether orgs should respond to criticism posts like this.I think the benefits of responding possibly outweigh the harms.
Maybe higher experienced and knowlegable EAs feel comfortable to let these kind of posts slide, as they trust the orgs and people involved. Less experienced Forum peruses (people like me) who have less knowledge and EA background might find these kinds of posts disturbing and feel like a response is warranted to clear the air. For example even Habryka’s reply about the coffee table was fantastic and basically quashed that criticism. I feel it would have been even better if it had come from the org’s leaders.
It’s not only this post about Atlas. OpenPhil and others haven’t responded in depth to serious criticisms recently, nor have they clearly stated why not.
I Have listed potential benefits and harms of responding to weigh below. It’s hard to weight benefits vs harms,
Potential Benefits of responding
- Quashing rumours early and quickly
- Answering reasonable questions to set minds at ease. For example in ths case Explaining the EV calculations of why 50k was given wouldn’t be very hard I don’t think. It must be written somewhere, I would imagine they could probably almost copy paste the reasons.
- Give confidence both within and outside the EA community that orgs are open to criticism and engaging with it.
Potental Harms of responding
- Dragging out drama and making it even more higher profile by continuing unhelpful or even toxic conversations.
- Giving weak criticisms increased airtime by responding rather than ignoring them
- Making whoever responds a target for further grilling and stress.
- Monetary/Time costs spent responding (I think these are often overstated though and can be easy to hide behind)
I’m sure there are many more benefits and harms as well. Although my instinct is that early, in-depth replies is the best way to respond I’m very uncertain.