“An obvious retort here would be that these are scholars, not decision-makers, that any claim of elitism is less relevant if it refers to simple intellectual exploration. This is not the case. Scholars of existential risk, especially those related to the TUA, are rapidly and intentionally growing in influence. To name only one example noted earlier, scholars in the field have already had “existential risks” referenced in a vision-setting report of the UN Secretary General. Toby Ord has been referenced, alongside existential risks, by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Dedicated think-tanks such as the Centre for Long-Term Resilience have been channelling policy advice from prominent existential risk scholars into the UK government”
The impression I get from this passage is that it is illegitimate or wrong for TUA proponents to have influence eg via the Center for Long-Term Resilience. Luke Kemp has also provided extensive advice and recommendations to this think tank (as have I). Is the thought that it is legitimate for Luke Kemp to try to have such policy leverage, but not legitimate for proponents of TUA to do so? If so, why is that?
“Toby Ord shouldn’t seek to influence policy” is not the message I get from that paragraph, fwiw.
It comes across to me as “Toby Ord and other techno-optimists already have policy influence [and so it’s especially important for people who care about the long-term future to fund researchers from other viewpoints as well].”
I’m obviously not the authors; maybe they did mean to say that you and Toby Ord should stop trying to influence policy. But that wasn’t my first impression.
I thought it was clear, in context, that the point made was that a minority shouldn’t be in charge, especially when ignoring other views. (You’ve ignored my discussion of this in the past, but I take it you disagree.)
That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t say anything, just that we should strive for more representative views to be presented alongside theirs—something that Toby and Luke seem to agree with, given what they have suggested in the CTLR report, in this paper, and elsewhere.
Re the undue influence of TUA on policy, you say
“An obvious retort here would be that these are scholars, not decision-makers, that any claim of elitism is less relevant if it refers to simple intellectual exploration. This is not the case. Scholars of existential risk, especially those related to the TUA, are rapidly and intentionally growing in influence. To name only one example noted earlier, scholars in the field have already had “existential risks” referenced in a vision-setting report of the UN Secretary General. Toby Ord has been referenced, alongside existential risks, by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Dedicated think-tanks such as the Centre for Long-Term Resilience have been channelling policy advice from prominent existential risk scholars into the UK government”
The impression I get from this passage is that it is illegitimate or wrong for TUA proponents to have influence eg via the Center for Long-Term Resilience. Luke Kemp has also provided extensive advice and recommendations to this think tank (as have I). Is the thought that it is legitimate for Luke Kemp to try to have such policy leverage, but not legitimate for proponents of TUA to do so? If so, why is that?
“Toby Ord shouldn’t seek to influence policy” is not the message I get from that paragraph, fwiw.
It comes across to me as “Toby Ord and other techno-optimists already have policy influence [and so it’s especially important for people who care about the long-term future to fund researchers from other viewpoints as well].”
I’m obviously not the authors; maybe they did mean to say that you and Toby Ord should stop trying to influence policy. But that wasn’t my first impression.
That wasn’t how I interpreted it but perhaps I am an outlier given the voting on this comment.
I thought it was clear, in context, that the point made was that a minority shouldn’t be in charge, especially when ignoring other views. (You’ve ignored my discussion of this in the past, but I take it you disagree.)
That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t say anything, just that we should strive for more representative views to be presented alongside theirs—something that Toby and Luke seem to agree with, given what they have suggested in the CTLR report, in this paper, and elsewhere.