I left two other comments with some feedback, but want to note:
I strong-upvoted this EA Forum post because I really like that you are sharing the script and video with the community to gather feedback
I refrained from liking the video on YouTube and donât expect to share it with people not famililar with longtermism as a means of introducing them to it because I donât think the video is high enough quality for it to be a good thing for more people to see it. Iâd like to see you gather more feedback on the scripts of future videos related to EA before creating the videos.
I refrained from liking the video on YouTube and donât expect to share it with people not famililar with longtermism as a means of introducing them to it because I donât think the video is high enough quality for it to be a good thing for more people to see it
I think your feedback in the other comment is mostly correct, but⌠arenât those relatively minor concerns? Do you think the video actually has net negative impact in its present form? Some of your criticism is actually about Bostromâs paper, and that seems like it had a fairly positive impact.
Some of your criticism is actually about Bostromâs paper
Assuming this is what your comment is in reference to: I looked at Bostromâs paper after and I think his sentence about 1% reduction in x-risk being like a 10M+ year delay before growth is actually intuitive given his context (he mentioned that galaxies exist for billions of years just before), so I actually think the version of this you put in the script is significantly less intuitive. The video viewer also only has the context of the video up to that point whereas thr paper reader has a lot more context from the paper. Also videos should be a lot more comprehensible to laypeople than Bostrom papers.
I think the question of whether the video will be net negative on the margin is complicated. A more relevant question that is easier to answer is âis it reasonable to think that a higher quality video could be made for a reasonable additional amount of effort and would that be clearly better on net to have given the costs and benefits?â
I think the answer to this is âyesâ and if we use that as the counterfactual rather than no video at all, it seems clear that you should target producing that video, even if your existing video is positive on net relative to no video.
Oh sure, without a doubt, if there is a better video to be made with little additional effort, making that video is obviously better, no denying that.
I asked that question because you said:
I donât think the video is high enough quality for it to be a good thing for more people to see it
And thatâs way more worrying than âthis video could be significantly improved with little effortâ. At least I would like to start with a âdo no harmâ policy. Like, if the channel does harm then the channel ought to be nuked if the harm is large enough. If the channel has just room for improvement thatâs a different kettle of fish entirely.
I left two other comments with some feedback, but want to note:
I strong-upvoted this EA Forum post because I really like that you are sharing the script and video with the community to gather feedback
I refrained from liking the video on YouTube and donât expect to share it with people not famililar with longtermism as a means of introducing them to it because I donât think the video is high enough quality for it to be a good thing for more people to see it. Iâd like to see you gather more feedback on the scripts of future videos related to EA before creating the videos.
I think your feedback in the other comment is mostly correct, but⌠arenât those relatively minor concerns? Do you think the video actually has net negative impact in its present form? Some of your criticism is actually about Bostromâs paper, and that seems like it had a fairly positive impact.
Assuming this is what your comment is in reference to: I looked at Bostromâs paper after and I think his sentence about 1% reduction in x-risk being like a 10M+ year delay before growth is actually intuitive given his context (he mentioned that galaxies exist for billions of years just before), so I actually think the version of this you put in the script is significantly less intuitive. The video viewer also only has the context of the video up to that point whereas thr paper reader has a lot more context from the paper. Also videos should be a lot more comprehensible to laypeople than Bostrom papers.
I think the question of whether the video will be net negative on the margin is complicated. A more relevant question that is easier to answer is âis it reasonable to think that a higher quality video could be made for a reasonable additional amount of effort and would that be clearly better on net to have given the costs and benefits?â
I think the answer to this is âyesâ and if we use that as the counterfactual rather than no video at all, it seems clear that you should target producing that video, even if your existing video is positive on net relative to no video.
Oh sure, without a doubt, if there is a better video to be made with little additional effort, making that video is obviously better, no denying that.
I asked that question because you said:
And thatâs way more worrying than âthis video could be significantly improved with little effortâ. At least I would like to start with a âdo no harmâ policy. Like, if the channel does harm then the channel ought to be nuked if the harm is large enough. If the channel has just room for improvement thatâs a different kettle of fish entirely.
Gotcha. I donât actually have a strong opinion on the net negative question. I worded my comment poorly.