Lol I’ve lost a lot due to recent events, so on a personal level part of me really want to just agree with you and just say that we should wash our hands and agree to not interact with billionaires.
But I don’t know, I guess I still think I have at least an iota of power still. So I think the comment you replied to is still literally correct.
And I think it’s correct in spirit too, if maybe not for me personally.
Like, I think some other EAs who talk to billionaires have some power, though I guess I could be more cynical and I don’t know what constraints they’re operating on. Still, e.g. there are at least millions of bednets that would not be possible without consorting with Good Ventures and money that implicitly came from Facebook and Asana.
At the time I find the comment I replied to literally false. I still believe this.
I agree with you that the original comment, taken literally, is probably false and that EAs consorting with billionaires can still retain some power.
But I think the original comment by Berta had a good point in that there seemed to be a general naivete by EA about power and other people’s intentions. However, that is just from my vantage point as someone who does not work at an EA org and is not in any inner EA circle.
I think recent events have definitely lowered the general level of trust within the EA community. But that is not necessarily a good thing and I hope EA does not overcorrect, either. Getting the balance right will be tricky, but I think Berta was on the right track in that EA could benefit from thinking and talking about power more.
I’ve just been reading up on earlier EA forum posts about democracy and billionaire spending in light of the FTX saga that broke this week.
This comment did not age well.
Lol I’ve lost a lot due to recent events, so on a personal level part of me really want to just agree with you and just say that we should wash our hands and agree to not interact with billionaires.
But I don’t know, I guess I still think I have at least an iota of power still. So I think the comment you replied to is still literally correct.
And I think it’s correct in spirit too, if maybe not for me personally.
Like, I think some other EAs who talk to billionaires have some power, though I guess I could be more cynical and I don’t know what constraints they’re operating on. Still, e.g. there are at least millions of bednets that would not be possible without consorting with Good Ventures and money that implicitly came from Facebook and Asana.
At the time I find the comment I replied to literally false. I still believe this.
I agree with you that the original comment, taken literally, is probably false and that EAs consorting with billionaires can still retain some power.
But I think the original comment by Berta had a good point in that there seemed to be a general naivete by EA about power and other people’s intentions. However, that is just from my vantage point as someone who does not work at an EA org and is not in any inner EA circle.
I think recent events have definitely lowered the general level of trust within the EA community. But that is not necessarily a good thing and I hope EA does not overcorrect, either. Getting the balance right will be tricky, but I think Berta was on the right track in that EA could benefit from thinking and talking about power more.
Thanks. Re:
I’ve updated slightly downwards on the value of special information for what it’s worth. Especially my own.