Hey! Iāve only skimmed through this piece, but Iād like to recommend that you adapt it for a general audience and submit it to an online publication, especially Current Affairs or Aeon (the websites on which Torresās pieces were published). This would be beneficial for two reasons:
It would get in front of non-EAs who might read the Torres piece, since theyāre likely to read websites for broad audiences like Aeon but unlikely to read a post on the EA Forum.
Works published in established venues with editorial control over their content are more likely to be treated as reliable sources on Wikipedia than self-published sources like the EA Forum. This means that the Torres essays are more likely to be cited in a Wikipedia article (for example, the Aeon one is already cited in the longtermism article) than the many rebuttals to them written by thinkers in the EA community.
Not sure how much to weight this, but perhaps it would be better to have a straightforwardly pro-longtermism piece in one of these outlets, rather than a response to Torres. If edited for Aeon or Current Affairs as a response piece this would need to offer detailed exposition of Torresās arguments, and might just result in getting more people to read the original.
I donāt know if either outlet publishes a āletter to the editorā style post. If they did, that might be a better short format which would mostly reach readers of Torresās article, rather than a full article which would likely just expand the reach of the original.
Let me know if I misunderstood something or am reading your post uncharitably, but to me this really looks like an attempt at hiding away opinions perceived harmful. I find this line of thinking extremely worrying.
EA should never attempt to hide criticism of itself. I am very much a longtermist and did not think highly of Torres article, but if people read it and think poorly of longtermism then thatās fine.
Thinking that hiding criticism can be justifiable because of the enormous stakes, is the exact logic Torres is criticising in the first place!
Framing my proposal as āhiding criticismā is perhaps unduly emotive here. I think that it makes sense to be careful and purposive about what types of content you broadcast to a wider audience which is unlikely to do further research or read particularly critically. I agree with Aaronās comment further down the page where he says that the effect of Torresās piece is to make people feel āickyā about longtermism. Therefore to achieve the ends which I take as implicit in evelynciaraās comment (counteract some of the effects of Torresās article and produce a piece of work which could be referenced on wikipedia), I think it makes more sense to just aim to write a fairer piece about longtermism, than to draw more attention to Torresās piece. Iām all for criticism of longtermism and I think such an article would be incomplete without including some, I just donāt think Torresās piece offers usable criticism.
But if his text is so bad, why should anyone feel āickyā about longtermism because of it? Although Iām by far not stranger to longtermism (Iām here!), Iām really not too much into EA and Iām not a phylosopher nor have I studied it ever, so my theoretical knowledge of the topic is limited, and when I read Torresā texts it is clear to me that they donāt really hold.
When Iām interested in one topic for which Iām not really qualified to know if what I read/āhear about it holds true or is one sided, I tend to search for criticisms about it to check. What Iāve read from Torres or linked by him about longtermism, actually make me think that it seems to be difficult to fairly criticise longtermism.
I think reading Torresā texts may well turn people away if they donāt really know much else about the topic, but āgetting more people to read the original [Torresā paper]ā after having read a good piece shouldnāt be a problem.
And coming back to my starting question, if a person who has good information sources feel āickyā about a topic because of a bad piece of information, maybe it is okay that he/āshe is not too involved in the topic, no?
Commenting from five months into the future, when this is topically relevant:
I disagree. I read Torresā arguments as not merely flawed, but as attempts to link longtermism to the far right in US culture wars. In such environments people are inclined to be uncharitable, and to spread the word to others who will also be uncharitable. With enough bad press itās possible to get a Common Knowledge effect, where even people who are inclined to be openminded are worried about being seen doing so. That could be bad for recruiting, funding, cooperative endeavors, & mental health.
Now, thereās only so many overpoliticized social media bubbles capable of such a wide effect, and they donāt find new targets every day. So the chances of EA becoming a political bogeyman are low, even if Torres is actively attempting this. But I think bringing up his specific insinuations to a new audience invites more of this risk than is worth it.
It is long time ago now, but I donāt remember having the feeling that he linked longtermism to the far right in that text. I donāt know about in other places.
Hey! Iāve only skimmed through this piece, but Iād like to recommend that you adapt it for a general audience and submit it to an online publication, especially Current Affairs or Aeon (the websites on which Torresās pieces were published). This would be beneficial for two reasons:
It would get in front of non-EAs who might read the Torres piece, since theyāre likely to read websites for broad audiences like Aeon but unlikely to read a post on the EA Forum.
Works published in established venues with editorial control over their content are more likely to be treated as reliable sources on Wikipedia than self-published sources like the EA Forum. This means that the Torres essays are more likely to be cited in a Wikipedia article (for example, the Aeon one is already cited in the longtermism article) than the many rebuttals to them written by thinkers in the EA community.
Not sure how much to weight this, but perhaps it would be better to have a straightforwardly pro-longtermism piece in one of these outlets, rather than a response to Torres. If edited for Aeon or Current Affairs as a response piece this would need to offer detailed exposition of Torresās arguments, and might just result in getting more people to read the original.
I donāt know if either outlet publishes a āletter to the editorā style post. If they did, that might be a better short format which would mostly reach readers of Torresās article, rather than a full article which would likely just expand the reach of the original.
Let me know if I misunderstood something or am reading your post uncharitably, but to me this really looks like an attempt at hiding away opinions perceived harmful. I find this line of thinking extremely worrying.
EA should never attempt to hide criticism of itself. I am very much a longtermist and did not think highly of Torres article, but if people read it and think poorly of longtermism then thatās fine.
Thinking that hiding criticism can be justifiable because of the enormous stakes, is the exact logic Torres is criticising in the first place!
Framing my proposal as āhiding criticismā is perhaps unduly emotive here. I think that it makes sense to be careful and purposive about what types of content you broadcast to a wider audience which is unlikely to do further research or read particularly critically. I agree with Aaronās comment further down the page where he says that the effect of Torresās piece is to make people feel āickyā about longtermism. Therefore to achieve the ends which I take as implicit in evelynciaraās comment (counteract some of the effects of Torresās article and produce a piece of work which could be referenced on wikipedia), I think it makes more sense to just aim to write a fairer piece about longtermism, than to draw more attention to Torresās piece. Iām all for criticism of longtermism and I think such an article would be incomplete without including some, I just donāt think Torresās piece offers usable criticism.
Makes sense, I agree with that sentiment.
But if his text is so bad, why should anyone feel āickyā about longtermism because of it? Although Iām by far not stranger to longtermism (Iām here!), Iām really not too much into EA and Iām not a phylosopher nor have I studied it ever, so my theoretical knowledge of the topic is limited, and when I read Torresā texts it is clear to me that they donāt really hold.
When Iām interested in one topic for which Iām not really qualified to know if what I read/āhear about it holds true or is one sided, I tend to search for criticisms about it to check. What Iāve read from Torres or linked by him about longtermism, actually make me think that it seems to be difficult to fairly criticise longtermism.
I think reading Torresā texts may well turn people away if they donāt really know much else about the topic, but āgetting more people to read the original [Torresā paper]ā after having read a good piece shouldnāt be a problem.
And coming back to my starting question, if a person who has good information sources feel āickyā about a topic because of a bad piece of information, maybe it is okay that he/āshe is not too involved in the topic, no?
Commenting from five months into the future, when this is topically relevant:
I disagree. I read Torresā arguments as not merely flawed, but as attempts to link longtermism to the far right in US culture wars. In such environments people are inclined to be uncharitable, and to spread the word to others who will also be uncharitable. With enough bad press itās possible to get a Common Knowledge effect, where even people who are inclined to be openminded are worried about being seen doing so. That could be bad for recruiting, funding, cooperative endeavors, & mental health.
Now, thereās only so many overpoliticized social media bubbles capable of such a wide effect, and they donāt find new targets every day. So the chances of EA becoming a political bogeyman are low, even if Torres is actively attempting this. But I think bringing up his specific insinuations to a new audience invites more of this risk than is worth it.
It is long time ago now, but I donāt remember having the feeling that he linked longtermism to the far right in that text. I donāt know about in other places.