When I made my comment, I think I kind-of had in mind ānegative total effectā, rather than āat least one negative effect, whether or not itās offsetā. But I donāt think Iād explicitly thought about the distinction (which is a bit silly), and my comment doesnāt make it totally clear what I meant, so itās a good question.
I think my 80% confidence interval probably wouldnāt include an overall negative impact of the writeup. But I think my 95% confidence interval would.
Reasons why my 80% confidence interval probably wouldnāt include an overall negative impact of the writeup, despite what I said in my previous comment:
I think we should have some degree of confidence that, if thereās more public discussion by people with fairly good epistemics and good epistemic and discussion norms, thatāll tend to update people towards more accurate beliefs.
(Not every time, but more often than it does the opposite.)
As such, I think we should start off skeptical of claims like āAn EA Forum post that influenced peopleās beliefs and behaviours substantially influenced those things in a bad way, even though in theory someone else couldāve pointed that out convincingly and thus prevented that influence.ā
And then thereās also the fact that Gleave later got a role on the LTFF, suggesting heās probably good at reasoning about these things.
And thereās also my object-level positive impressions of ALLFED.
When I made my comment, I think I kind-of had in mind ānegative total effectā, rather than āat least one negative effect, whether or not itās offsetā. But I donāt think Iād explicitly thought about the distinction (which is a bit silly), and my comment doesnāt make it totally clear what I meant, so itās a good question.
I think my 80% confidence interval probably wouldnāt include an overall negative impact of the writeup. But I think my 95% confidence interval would.
Reasons why my 80% confidence interval probably wouldnāt include an overall negative impact of the writeup, despite what I said in my previous comment:
I think we should have some degree of confidence that, if thereās more public discussion by people with fairly good epistemics and good epistemic and discussion norms, thatāll tend to update people towards more accurate beliefs.
(Not every time, but more often than it does the opposite.)
As such, I think we should start off skeptical of claims like āAn EA Forum post that influenced peopleās beliefs and behaviours substantially influenced those things in a bad way, even though in theory someone else couldāve pointed that out convincingly and thus prevented that influence.ā
And then thereās also the fact that Gleave later got a role on the LTFF, suggesting heās probably good at reasoning about these things.
And thereās also my object-level positive impressions of ALLFED.
I have nothing to disagree about here :)