Context for everybody: Gregory Lewis is a biorisk researcher with a background in medicine and public health. He describes himself as āheavily involved in Effective Altruismā. (Heās not a stranger here: his EA Forum account was created in 2014 and he has 21 posts and 6000 karma.)
The 80,000 Hours Podcast interview was recorded in mid-April 2020. Lewis starts off with a compliment:
If we were to give a fair accounting of all EA has done in and around this pandemic, I think this would overall end up reasonably strongly to its credit. For a few reasons. The first is that a lot of EAs I know were, excuse the term, comfortably ahead of the curve compared to most other people, especially most non-experts in recognizing this at the time: that emerging infectious disease could be a major threat to peopleās health worldwide. And insofar as their responses to this were typically either going above and beyond in terms of being good citizens or trying to raise the alarm, these seem like all prosocial, good citizen things which reflect well on the community as a whole.
He also pays a compliment to a few people in the EA community who have brainstormed interesting ideas about how to respond to the pandemic and who (as of April 2020) were working on some interesting projects. But he continues (my emphasis added):
But unfortunately Iāve got more to say.
So, putting things politely, a lot of the EA discussion, activity, whatever you want to call it, has been shrouded in this miasma of obnoxious stupidity, and itās been sufficiently aggravating for someone like me. I sort of want to consider whether I can start calling myself EA adjacent rather than EA, or find some way of distancing myself from the community as a whole. Now the thing I want to stress before I go on to explain why I feel this way is that unfortunately Iām not alone in having these sorts of reactions.
ā¦ But at least I have a few people who talk to me now, who, similar to me, have relevant knowledge, background and skills. And also, similar to me, have found this community so infuriating they need to take a break from their social media or want to rage quit the community as a whole. ā¦ So I think thereās just a pattern whereby discussion around this has been very repulsive to people who know a lot about the subject is, I think, a course for grave concern.
That EAās approval rating seems to fall dramatically with increasing knowledge is not the pattern you typically take as a good sign from the outside view.
Lewis elaborates (my emphasis added again):
And this general sense of just playing very fast and loose is pretty frustrating. I have experienced a few times of someone recommending X, then I go into the literature, find itās not a very good idea, then I briefly comment going, āHey, this thing here, that seems to be mostly ignoredā, then I get some pretty facile reply and I give up and go home. And thatās happened to other people as well. So I guess given all these things, it seems like bits of the EA response were somewhat less than optimal.
And I think for ways it could have been improved were mostly in the modesty direction. So, for example, I think several EAs have independently discovered for themselves things like right censoring or imperfect ascertainment or other bits of epidemiology which inform how you, for example, assess the case fatality ratio. And thatās great, but all of that was in most textbooks and maybe itād have saved time had those been consulted first rather than doing something else instead.
More on this consulting textbooks:
But typically for most fields of human endeavor, we have a reasonably good way which is probably reasonably efficient in terms of picking up the relevant level of knowledge and expertise. Now, itās less efficient if you just target it, if you know in advance what you want to know ahead. But unfortunately, this area tends to be one where itās a background tacit knowledge thing. Itās hard to, as it were, rapier-like just stab all the things, in particular, facts you need. And if you miss some then it can be a bit tricky in terms of having good ideas thereafter.
Whatās worse than inefficiency:
The other problems are people often just having some fairly bad takes on lots of things. And itās not always bad in terms of getting the wrong answer. I think some of the interventions do seem pretty ill-advised and could be known to be ill-advised if one had maybe done oneās homework slightly better. These are complicated topics generally: something you thought about for 30 minutes and wrote a Medium post about may not actually be really hitting the cutting edge.
An example of a bad take:
So I think President Trump at the moment is suggesting that, as it were, the cure is worse than the disease with respect to suppression. ā¦ But suppose weāre clairvoyant and we see in two yearsā time, we actually see that was right. ā¦ I think very few people would be willing to, well, maybe a few people listening to this podcast can give Trump a lot of credit for calling it well. Because they would probably say, āWell yeah, maybe that was the right decision but he chose it for the wrong reasons or the wrong epistemic qualitiesā. And I sort of feel like a similar thing sort of often applies here.
So, for example, a lot of EAs are very happy to castigate the UK government when it was more going for mitigation rather than suppression, but for reasons why, just didnāt seem to indicate they really attended to any of the relevant issues which you want to be wrestling with. And see that they got it right, but they got it right in the way that stopped clocks are right if you look at them at the right time of day. I think itās more like an adverse rather than a positive indicator. So thatās the second thing.
On bad epistemic norms:
And the third thing is when you donāt have much knowledge of your, perhaps, limitations and youāre willing to confidently pronounce on various things. This is, I think, somewhat annoying for people like me who maybe know slightly more as Iām probably expressing from the last five minutes of ranting at you. But moreover, it doesnāt necessarily set a good model for the rest of the EA community either. Because things I thought we were about were things like, itās really important to think things through very carefully before doing things. A lot of your actions can have unforeseen consequences. You should really carefully weigh things up and try and make sure you understand all the relevant information before making a recommendation or making a decision.
And it still feels weāre not really doing that as much as we should be. And I was sort of hoping that EA, in an environment where thereās a lot of misinformation, lots of outrage on various social media outlets, thereās also castigation of various figures, I was hoping EA could strike a different tone from all of this and be more measured, more careful and just more better I guess, roughly speaking.
More on EA criticism of the UK government:
Well, I think this is twofold. So one is, if you look at SAGE, which is the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, who released what they had two weeks ago in terms of advice that they were giving the government, which is well worth a read. And my reading of it was essentially they were essentially weeks ahead of EA discourse in terms of all the considerations they should be weighing up. So obviously being worse than the expert group tasked to manage this is not a huge rap in terms of, āWell youāre doing worse than the leading experts in the country.ā Thatās fair enough. But theyāre still overconfident in like, āOh, donāt you guys realize that people might die if hospital services get overwhelmed, therefore your policy is wrong.ā It seems like just a very facile way of looking at it.
But maybe the thing is first like, not having a very good view. The second would be being way too overconfident that you actually knew the right answer and they didnāt. So much that youāre willing to offer a diagnosis, for example, āMaybe the Chief Medical Officer doesnāt understand how case ascertainment works or somethingā. And itās like this guy was a professor of public health in a past life. I think he probably has got that memo by now. And so on and so forth.
On cloth masks:
I think also the sort of ideas which Iāve seen thrown around are at least pretty dicey. So one, in particular, is the use of cloth masks; we should all be making cloth masks and wearing them.
And Iām not sure thatās false. I know the received view in EA land is that medical masks are pretty good for the general population which Iāll just about lean in favor of, although all of these things are uncertain. But cloth masks seem particularly risky insofar as if people arenāt sterilizing them regularly which you expect they wonāt: a common thing about the public that you care about is actual use rather than perfect use. And you have this moist cloth pad which you repeatedly contaminate and apply to your face which may in fact increase your risk and may in fact even increase the risk of transmission. Itās mostly based on contact rather than based on direct droplet spreads. And now itās not like lots of people were touting this. But lots on Twitter were saying this. They cite all the things. They seem not to highlight the RCT which cluster analyzed healthcare workers to medical masks, control, and cloth masks, and found cloth masks did worse than the control.
Then you would point out, per protocol, that most people in the controlled arm were using medical masks anyway or many of them were, so itās hard to tell whether cloth masks were bad or medical masks were good. But itās enough to cause concern. People who write the reviews on this are also similarly circumspect and I think theyāve actually read the literature where I think most of the EAs confidently pronouncing itās a good idea generally havenāt. So thereās this general risk of having risky policy proposals which you could derisk, in expectation, by a lot, by carefully, as it were, checking the tape.
More on cloth masks:
And I still think if youāre going to do this, or youāre going to make your recommendations based on expectation, you should be checking very carefully to make sure your expectation is as accurate as it could be, especially if thereās like a credible risk of causing harm and thatās hard to do for anyone, for anything. I mean cf. the history of GiveWell, for example, amongst all its careful evaluation. And weāre sort of at the other end of the scale here. And I think that could be improved. If it was someone like, āOh, I did my assessment review of mask use and hereās my interpretation. I talked to these authors about these things or whatever elseā, then Iād be more inclined to be happy. But where thereās dozens of ideas being pinged aroundā¦ Many of them are at least dubious, if not downright worrying, then Iām not sure Iām seeing really EA live out its values and be a beacon of light in the darkness of irrationality.
Lewisā concrete recommendations for EA:
The direction I would be keen for EAs to go in is essentially paying closer attention to available evidence such as it is. And there are some things out there which can often be looked at or looked up, or existing knowledge one can get better acquainted with to help inform what you think might be good or bad ideas. And I think, also, maybe thereās a possibility that places like 80K could have a comparative advantage in terms of elicitation or distillation of this in a fast moving environment, but maybe itās better done by, as it were, relaying on what people who do this all day long, and who have a relevant background are saying about this.
So yeah, maybe Marc Lipsitch wants to come on the 80K podcast, maybe someone like Adam Kucharski would like to come on. Or like Rosalind Eggo or other people like this. Maybe theyād welcome a chance of being able to set the record straight given like two hours to talk about their thing rather than like a 15 minute media segment. And it seems like that might be a better way of generally improving the epistemic waterline of EA discussions, rather than lots of people pandemic blogging, roughly speaking, and a very rapid, high turnaround. By necessity, thereās like limited time to gather relevant facts and information.
More on EA setting a bad example:
...one of the things Iām worried about, itās like a lot of people are going to look at COVID-19, start want get involved in GCBRs. And sort of all these people are cautious, circumspect, lotās of discretion and stuff like that. I donāt think 80Ks activity on this has really modeled a lot of that to them. Rob [Wiblin], in particular, but not alone. So having a pile of that does not fill me with great amounts of joy or anticipation but rather some degree of worry.
I think that does actually apply even in first order terms to the COVID-19 pandemic, where I can imagine a slightly more circumspect or cautious version of 80K, or 80K staff or whatever, would have perhaps had maybe less activity on COVID, but maybe slightly higher quality activity on COVID and that mightāve been better.
On epistemic caution:
I mean people like me are very hesitant to talk very much on COVID for fear of being wrong or making mistakes. And I think that fear should be more widespread and maybe more severe for folks who donāt have the relevant background whoāre trying to navigate the issue as well.
Lewis twice mentions an EA Forum post he wrote about epistemic modesty, which sounds like it would be a relevant read, here.
Woah, this is brutal.
Context for everybody: Gregory Lewis is a biorisk researcher with a background in medicine and public health. He describes himself as āheavily involved in Effective Altruismā. (Heās not a stranger here: his EA Forum account was created in 2014 and he has 21 posts and 6000 karma.)
The 80,000 Hours Podcast interview was recorded in mid-April 2020. Lewis starts off with a compliment:
He also pays a compliment to a few people in the EA community who have brainstormed interesting ideas about how to respond to the pandemic and who (as of April 2020) were working on some interesting projects. But he continues (my emphasis added):
Lewis elaborates (my emphasis added again):
More on this consulting textbooks:
Whatās worse than inefficiency:
An example of a bad take:
On bad epistemic norms:
More on EA criticism of the UK government:
On cloth masks:
More on cloth masks:
Lewisā concrete recommendations for EA:
More on EA setting a bad example:
On epistemic caution:
Lewis twice mentions an EA Forum post he wrote about epistemic modesty, which sounds like it would be a relevant read, here.