I agree with the other respondent that Dylan Matthews and Ezra Klein genuinely seem to care about EA causes (Dylan on just about everything, even AI risk [a change from his previous position], and Ezra at least on veganism). Hiring Kelsey Piper is one clear example of thisâshe had no prior journalism experience, as far as Iâm aware, but had very strong domain knowledge and a commitment to EA goals. Likewise, the sectionâs Community Manager, Sammy Fries, also had a background in the EA community.
It would have been easy for Vox to hire people with non-EA backgrounds who had more direct media experience, but they did something that probably made their jobs a bit harder (from a training standpoint). This seems like information we shouldnât ignore (though of course, for all I know, Sammy and Kelsey may have been the best candidates even without their past EA experience).
Really good journalism is hard to produce, and just like any other outlet, Vox often succumbs to the desire to publish more pieces than it can fact-check. And some of their staff writers arenât very good, at least in the sense that we wish they were good.
But still, because of Future Perfect, there has been more good journalism about EA causes in the last few months than in perhaps the entirety of journalism before that time. The ratio of good EA journalism to bad is certainly higher than it was before.
There is a model you could adopt under which the raw amount of bad journalism matters more than the good/âbad ratio, because one bad piece can cause far more damage than any good piece can undo, but you donât seem to have argued that Vox is going to damage us in that sense, and it seems like their most important/âcentral pieces about core EA causes generally come from Kelsey Piper, who I trust a lot.
I agree that some of Voxâs work is flawed and systematically biased, but theyâve also produced enough good work that I hope to see them stick around. Whatâs more, the existence of Future Perfect may lead to certain good consequences, perhaps including:
Other news outlets hiring people with EA backgrounds to write on similar topics, following in Voxâs footsteps.
News outlets using Future Perfect as a source when they write about EA issues (Iâd much prefer a journalist learning about AI risk start with Piper than other mass-media articles on the subject).
Other EA people working with Vox and gaining valuable insight into how the media works; even if it turns out that we should try not to engage with the media whenever possible, at least having a few people who understand it seems good.
I agree with the other respondent that Dylan Matthews and Ezra Klein genuinely seem to care about EA causes (Dylan on just about everything, even AI risk [a change from his previous position], and Ezra at least on veganism). Hiring Kelsey Piper is one clear example of thisâshe had no prior journalism experience, as far as Iâm aware, but had very strong domain knowledge and a commitment to EA goals. Likewise, the sectionâs Community Manager, Sammy Fries, also had a background in the EA community.
It would have been easy for Vox to hire people with non-EA backgrounds who had more direct media experience, but they did something that probably made their jobs a bit harder (from a training standpoint). This seems like information we shouldnât ignore (though of course, for all I know, Sammy and Kelsey may have been the best candidates even without their past EA experience).
Really good journalism is hard to produce, and just like any other outlet, Vox often succumbs to the desire to publish more pieces than it can fact-check. And some of their staff writers arenât very good, at least in the sense that we wish they were good.
But still, because of Future Perfect, there has been more good journalism about EA causes in the last few months than in perhaps the entirety of journalism before that time. The ratio of good EA journalism to bad is certainly higher than it was before.
There is a model you could adopt under which the raw amount of bad journalism matters more than the good/âbad ratio, because one bad piece can cause far more damage than any good piece can undo, but you donât seem to have argued that Vox is going to damage us in that sense, and it seems like their most important/âcentral pieces about core EA causes generally come from Kelsey Piper, who I trust a lot.
I agree that some of Voxâs work is flawed and systematically biased, but theyâve also produced enough good work that I hope to see them stick around. Whatâs more, the existence of Future Perfect may lead to certain good consequences, perhaps including:
Other news outlets hiring people with EA backgrounds to write on similar topics, following in Voxâs footsteps.
News outlets using Future Perfect as a source when they write about EA issues (Iâd much prefer a journalist learning about AI risk start with Piper than other mass-media articles on the subject).
Other EA people working with Vox and gaining valuable insight into how the media works; even if it turns out that we should try not to engage with the media whenever possible, at least having a few people who understand it seems good.