By āthis spaceā, I meant the longtermist biosecurity/ābiorisk space. As far as Iām aware, the concern was along the lines of āThese new people might not be sufficiently cautious about infohazards, so them thinking more about this area in general could be badā, rather than it being tailored to specific projects/āareas/āfocuses the new people might have (and in particular, it wasnāt because the people proposed thinking up new biothreats).
(But I acknowledge that this remains vague, and also this is essentially second-hand info, so people probably shouldnāt update strongly in light of it.)
I would agree that getting people who arenāt cautious about things like infohazards is a much more mixed blessing if weāre talking about biorisk generally, and Iād want to hear details about what they were doing, and why there were concerns. (I can think of several people whos contribution is net-negative because most of what they do is at best useless, and they create work for others to respond to.)
But as I said, the pitch here from ASB and Ethan was far more narrow, and mostly avoids those concerns.
It seems reasonable to me to be vigilant of sharing infohazards with new researchers in the field. Still, I am wondering if it might actually be worse to leave new researchers in the dark without teaching them how to recognize and contain those infohazards, especially when some are accessible on the internet. Is this a legitimate concern?
By āthis spaceā, I meant the longtermist biosecurity/ābiorisk space. As far as Iām aware, the concern was along the lines of āThese new people might not be sufficiently cautious about infohazards, so them thinking more about this area in general could be badā, rather than it being tailored to specific projects/āareas/āfocuses the new people might have (and in particular, it wasnāt because the people proposed thinking up new biothreats).
(But I acknowledge that this remains vague, and also this is essentially second-hand info, so people probably shouldnāt update strongly in light of it.)
I would agree that getting people who arenāt cautious about things like infohazards is a much more mixed blessing if weāre talking about biorisk generally, and Iād want to hear details about what they were doing, and why there were concerns. (I can think of several people whos contribution is net-negative because most of what they do is at best useless, and they create work for others to respond to.)
But as I said, the pitch here from ASB and Ethan was far more narrow, and mostly avoids those concerns.
It seems reasonable to me to be vigilant of sharing infohazards with new researchers in the field. Still, I am wondering if it might actually be worse to leave new researchers in the dark without teaching them how to recognize and contain those infohazards, especially when some are accessible on the internet. Is this a legitimate concern?