Yes we can withold funding, after the fact, and at great community reputational cost. But I can’t e.g. get SBF to not do podcasts nor stop the EA (or two?) that seem to have joined DOGE and started laying waste to USAID.
I believe most EAs would agree these examples should never have been in OP’s proverbial sphere of responsibility.
There are other examples we could discuss regarding OP’s role (as makes sense, no organization is perfect), but that might distract from the main topic: clarity on the OP-EA relationship and the mutual expectations between parties.
It seems obvious that such Bsky threads contain significant inaccuracies. The question is how much weight to give such criticisms.
My impression is that many EAs wouldn’t consider these threads important enough to drive major decisions like funding allocations. However, the fact you mention it suggests it’s significant to you, which I respect.
About the OP-EA relationship—if factors like “avoiding criticism from certain groups” are important for OP’s decisions, saying so clearly is the kind of thing that seems useful. I don’t want to get into arguments about if it should[1], the first thing is to just understand that that’s where a line is.
More specifically, I think these discussions could be useful—but I’m afraid they will get in the way of the discussions of how OP will act, which I think is more important.
This is probably off-topic, but I was very surprised to read this, given how much he supported the Harris campaign, how much he gives to reduce global poverty, and how similar your views are on e.g. platforming controversial people.
Just flagging that the EA Forum upvoting system is awkward here. This comment says: 1. “I can’t say that we agree on very much” 2. “you are often a voice of reason” 3. “your voice will be missed”
As such, I’m not sure what the Agree / Disagree reacts are referring to, and I imagine similar for others reading this.
This isn’t a point against David, just a challenge with us trying to use this specific system.
Minor points, from your comment:
I believe most EAs would agree these examples should never have been in OP’s proverbial sphere of responsibility.
There are other examples we could discuss regarding OP’s role (as makes sense, no organization is perfect), but that might distract from the main topic: clarity on the OP-EA relationship and the mutual expectations between parties.
It seems obvious that such Bsky threads contain significant inaccuracies. The question is how much weight to give such criticisms.
My impression is that many EAs wouldn’t consider these threads important enough to drive major decisions like funding allocations. However, the fact you mention it suggests it’s significant to you, which I respect.
About the OP-EA relationship—if factors like “avoiding criticism from certain groups” are important for OP’s decisions, saying so clearly is the kind of thing that seems useful. I don’t want to get into arguments about if it should[1], the first thing is to just understand that that’s where a line is.
More specifically, I think these discussions could be useful—but I’m afraid they will get in the way of the discussions of how OP will act, which I think is more important.
Ozzie I’m not planning to discuss it any further and don’t plan to participate on the forum anymore.
Please come back. I can’t say that we agree on very much, but you are often a voice of reason and your voice will be missed.
This is probably off-topic, but I was very surprised to read this, given how much he supported the Harris campaign, how much he gives to reduce global poverty, and how similar your views are on e.g. platforming controversial people.
Presumably https://reflectivealtruism.com/category/billionaire-philanthropy/?
Just flagging that the EA Forum upvoting system is awkward here. This comment says:
1. “I can’t say that we agree on very much”
2. “you are often a voice of reason”
3. “your voice will be missed”
As such, I’m not sure what the Agree / Disagree reacts are referring to, and I imagine similar for others reading this.
This isn’t a point against David, just a challenge with us trying to use this specific system.
This seems like quite a stretch.