Writing statements like this is really hard. It’s the equivalent of writing one tweet on something that you know everyone is gonna rip to pieces. I think there are tradeoffs here that people on the forum don’t seem to acknowledge. I am very confident (90%) that a page length discussion of this would have been worse in terms of outcomes.
I don’t think it was for us—I think it was for journalists etc. And I think it performed its job of EA not being dragged into all of this. Note how much better it was than either Anders’ statement or Bostrom’s—no one externally is discussing it, and in an adversarial environment that means it’s succeeded.
I think it was an acceptable level of accuracy. It’s very hard to write short things, but does EA roughly hold that all people are equal? Yes I think that’s not a bad 4 word summary. I think a better summary is “the value of beings doesn’t change based on their position in space or time and I reject the many heuristics humanity has used to narrow concern which have led to the suffering we see today—racism, sexism, speciesism, etc”. I think that while more precise that phrase isn’t that much more accurate and is worse in other ways—it’s just hard to understand.
It condemned the language Bostrom used without saying he was wrong to hold views. To me this is clearly more truth-seeking than practically any other organisation would have published.
I think we should judge CEA and by their track records, not one statement. I think they are a truth-seeking, effective organisation and if not, I don’t think it’s this statement that has changed that for me
I think the statement suggests that CEA doesn’t have a tolerance for language or flippancy like this, but doesn’t suggest that they are gonna sever ties with Bostrom. That seems like the right call.
I think people can dislike it. I really want people to feel free—but currently I don’t.
Conflict of interest: I like Shakeel and feel loyalty to him which probably distorts this.
I liked CEA’s statement
Writing statements like this is really hard. It’s the equivalent of writing one tweet on something that you know everyone is gonna rip to pieces. I think there are tradeoffs here that people on the forum don’t seem to acknowledge. I am very confident (90%) that a page length discussion of this would have been worse in terms of outcomes.
I don’t think it was for us—I think it was for journalists etc. And I think it performed its job of EA not being dragged into all of this. Note how much better it was than either Anders’ statement or Bostrom’s—no one externally is discussing it, and in an adversarial environment that means it’s succeeded.
I think it was an acceptable level of accuracy. It’s very hard to write short things, but does EA roughly hold that all people are equal? Yes I think that’s not a bad 4 word summary. I think a better summary is “the value of beings doesn’t change based on their position in space or time and I reject the many heuristics humanity has used to narrow concern which have led to the suffering we see today—racism, sexism, speciesism, etc”. I think that while more precise that phrase isn’t that much more accurate and is worse in other ways—it’s just hard to understand.
It condemned the language Bostrom used without saying he was wrong to hold views. To me this is clearly more truth-seeking than practically any other organisation would have published.
I think we should judge CEA and by their track records, not one statement. I think they are a truth-seeking, effective organisation and if not, I don’t think it’s this statement that has changed that for me
I think the statement suggests that CEA doesn’t have a tolerance for language or flippancy like this, but doesn’t suggest that they are gonna sever ties with Bostrom. That seems like the right call.
I think people can dislike it. I really want people to feel free—but currently I don’t.
Conflict of interest: I like Shakeel and feel loyalty to him which probably distorts this.