Quite right. Far too much scrutiny was applied to HLI. Five thousand words autistic debunkings, though highly entertaining to read and no doubt equally entertaining to their authors, should not have been necessary. Any reasonable model of how the world works would not perhaps not quite rule the idea of group therapy in poor countries out of court, but require an incredibly high standard of evidence to even begin discussing it somewhat politely.
On the subject of scrutinizing other orgs, I note that some hardworking but anonymous EAs have done their best to scrutizine EA’s various AI research orgs, but of course this is much more specialized endeavour requiring deeper expertise and is also entirely pointless because OpenPhil will probably fund them anyway.
We’ve banned Sol3:2 for 3 weeks. This comment is uncivil and was reported multiple times. Other comments have been reported in the past for similar reasons.
I want to note that criticism can be extremely valuable, and we have a slightly higher bar for taking mod action against criticism. But referring to analyses of HLI’s work as “autistic” clearly violates core Forum norms and is above that bar. I think it’s possible to outline strong disagreements while still following our norms, and we’d want to see this from Sol3:2 in the future.
If Sol3:2 thinks that this is not right, they can appeal.
Quite right. Far too much scrutiny was applied to HLI. Five thousand words autistic debunkings, though highly entertaining to read and no doubt equally entertaining to their authors, should not have been necessary. Any reasonable model of how the world works would not perhaps not quite rule the idea of group therapy in poor countries out of court, but require an incredibly high standard of evidence to even begin discussing it somewhat politely.
On the subject of scrutinizing other orgs, I note that some hardworking but anonymous EAs have done their best to scrutizine EA’s various AI research orgs, but of course this is much more specialized endeavour requiring deeper expertise and is also entirely pointless because OpenPhil will probably fund them anyway.
We’ve banned Sol3:2 for 3 weeks. This comment is uncivil and was reported multiple times. Other comments have been reported in the past for similar reasons.
I want to note that criticism can be extremely valuable, and we have a slightly higher bar for taking mod action against criticism. But referring to analyses of HLI’s work as “autistic” clearly violates core Forum norms and is above that bar. I think it’s possible to outline strong disagreements while still following our norms, and we’d want to see this from Sol3:2 in the future.
If Sol3:2 thinks that this is not right, they can appeal.