I don’t think it’s necessary for EA to denounce Musk on the basis that apart from a vague endorsement of a book a few years back and some general comments on AI safety which run in the opposite direction to his actual actions, he doesn’t seem to be associated with EA at all. (cf people like SBF needing “denouncements” because they were poster boys for it)
But I don’t think the popularity stat you’ve put up there is particularly representative of his present popularity or the direction it’s likely to trend in. More recent polls suggest he’s incredibly unpopular in Europe, whilst in the US’s more partisan environment his popularity clearly depends on party allegiance, but is still well underwater and less popular than USAID etc and also trending downwards.
Yes, people working in policy have to work with the polity they’ve got, not the one they want, but I suspect if you drew a Venn diagramm of “people who like Musk’s cuts to US Aid, AI safety initiatives etc” and “people who are likely to be remotely supportive of EA there wouldn’t be much overlap. I suspect many of the conservatives sympathetic to some of the things EA wants to do are the ones that think he has too much power and is taking the wrong approach...
people who are likely to be remotely supportive of EA
FYI, this post I linked was written by someone who also has an EA Forum account. (The post I linked is not exactly supportive of Musk, but it doesn’t exactly align with the OP either.)
I suspect many of the conservatives sympathetic to some of the things EA wants to do are the ones that think he has too much power and is taking the wrong approach...
Perhaps, but I doubt they consider it obvious. They might read a detailed explainer meant to pass their ITT, but I suspect they would consider OP in its current form to be “woke cancel culture”.
Geoffrey Miller is one of a small number of conservative EAs who posts about the importance of AI alignment. He seems neutral/positive on Musk:
FWIW I agree with your point that people who are broadly neutral/sympathetic are more likely to be sympathetic to a broad explainer than a “denunciation”.
But I worded my post quite carefully, it’s “people who like Musk’s cuts to US Aid and AI Safety” I don’t think overlap with EA. I don’t imagine either of the EA-affiliated people you linked to would object to EAs pointing out that Musk shutting down AI safety institutes might be the opposite of what he says he cares about. And I don’t think people who think foreign aid is a big scam and AI should be unregulated are putative EAs (whether they trust Musk or not!)
I don’t think a “denunciation” is needed, but I don’t think avoiding criticising political figures because they’re sensitive, powerful and have some public support is a way forward either.
I don’t think avoiding criticising political figures because they’re sensitive, powerful and have some public support is a way forward either.
This sounds right to me too. In general your points seem fair. Although I will note that skepticism towards foreign aid (as practiced by e.g. Givewell charity evaluators) seems rather compatible with EA in principle.
BTW, for a few reasons, I think it’s better, by default, to criticize actions rather than individuals. (For example, I suspect that makes it easier psychologically for the individuals who committed those actions to change their behavior.) So I feel good about posts like this one criticizing PEPFAR cuts.
I don’t think it’s necessary for EA to denounce Musk on the basis that apart from a vague endorsement of a book a few years back and some general comments on AI safety which run in the opposite direction to his actual actions, he doesn’t seem to be associated with EA at all
I think you are downplaying Musk’s (historic) association with EA, he was a speaker at EA Global 2015, and donated at least $10m to FLI’s AI safety research grants (both mentioned at this link)
That’s more than I thought, but it’s also a decade ago when Elon had very different priorities, and I’m not sure that EA has any image problems associated with people thinking EAs basically want what Elon wants. (I don’t think the Transgender Law Center needs to worry their name might be sullied by his donation to them in 2011 either!)
I don’t think it’s necessary for EA to denounce Musk on the basis that apart from a vague endorsement of a book a few years back and some general comments on AI safety which run in the opposite direction to his actual actions, he doesn’t seem to be associated with EA at all. (cf people like SBF needing “denouncements” because they were poster boys for it)
But I don’t think the popularity stat you’ve put up there is particularly representative of his present popularity or the direction it’s likely to trend in. More recent polls suggest he’s incredibly unpopular in Europe, whilst in the US’s more partisan environment his popularity clearly depends on party allegiance, but is still well underwater and less popular than USAID etc and also trending downwards.
Yes, people working in policy have to work with the polity they’ve got, not the one they want, but I suspect if you drew a Venn diagramm of “people who like Musk’s cuts to US Aid, AI safety initiatives etc” and “people who are likely to be remotely supportive of EA there wouldn’t be much overlap. I suspect many of the conservatives sympathetic to some of the things EA wants to do are the ones that think he has too much power and is taking the wrong approach...
Where was USAID mentioned in the PDF you linked?
FYI, this post I linked was written by someone who also has an EA Forum account. (The post I linked is not exactly supportive of Musk, but it doesn’t exactly align with the OP either.)
Perhaps, but I doubt they consider it obvious. They might read a detailed explainer meant to pass their ITT, but I suspect they would consider OP in its current form to be “woke cancel culture”.
Geoffrey Miller is one of a small number of conservative EAs who posts about the importance of AI alignment. He seems neutral/positive on Musk:
https://xcancel.com/primalpoly/search?f=tweets&q=musk+OR+to%3Aelonmusk&since=2024-09-01&until=2025-03-01&near=
My bad, I should have linked to this one
FWIW I agree with your point that people who are broadly neutral/sympathetic are more likely to be sympathetic to a broad explainer than a “denunciation”.
But I worded my post quite carefully, it’s “people who like Musk’s cuts to US Aid and AI Safety” I don’t think overlap with EA. I don’t imagine either of the EA-affiliated people you linked to would object to EAs pointing out that Musk shutting down AI safety institutes might be the opposite of what he says he cares about. And I don’t think people who think foreign aid is a big scam and AI should be unregulated are putative EAs (whether they trust Musk or not!)
I don’t think a “denunciation” is needed, but I don’t think avoiding criticising political figures because they’re sensitive, powerful and have some public support is a way forward either.
This sounds right to me too. In general your points seem fair. Although I will note that skepticism towards foreign aid (as practiced by e.g. Givewell charity evaluators) seems rather compatible with EA in principle.
BTW, for a few reasons, I think it’s better, by default, to criticize actions rather than individuals. (For example, I suspect that makes it easier psychologically for the individuals who committed those actions to change their behavior.) So I feel good about posts like this one criticizing PEPFAR cuts.
@Geoffrey Miller
I think you are downplaying Musk’s (historic) association with EA, he was a speaker at EA Global 2015, and donated at least $10m to FLI’s AI safety research grants (both mentioned at this link)
That’s more than I thought, but it’s also a decade ago when Elon had very different priorities, and I’m not sure that EA has any image problems associated with people thinking EAs basically want what Elon wants. (I don’t think the Transgender Law Center needs to worry their name might be sullied by his donation to them in 2011 either!)