[Edited to add: I see Chris Leong said something similar at the same time.]
I think there’s a tricky balance to strike.
If you think that option A is much better for the world than option B, then the more open and honest you are about thinking that A is much better, the more discouraged people working on B will feel.
But if you try to be more encouraging about option B, there’s a real risk that people won’t realise how much better you think option A is, and will work on B. If you’re correct that option A is much better, then this is a terrible outcome. In that case, it would probably be overall more important to encourage people to work on A than to be encouraging to people working on B.
So I have some sympathy for 80,000 Hours being honest about what they really think is best—and at a glance it doesn’t seem to me that they’re being unnecessarily discouraging about other areas. (I am sympathetic to longtermism though, so maybe that colours my perspective.)
What exactly is the change you’d like to see? Stopping saying that working on x-risk/longtermism is important, or still saying that but nevertheless being more encouraging about other areas?
(There’s the question of whether 80,000 Hours should say what they actually think, or should moderate it on the basis that other people would disagree with them about how important longtermism is.)
What exactly is the change you’d like to see? Stopping saying that working on x-risk/longtermism is important, or still saying that but nevertheless being more encouraging about other areas?
The latter. I very much believe they should do what they think right. Nevertheless, I feel like some changes to their wording and the (visual) representation of other cause areas might be a good idea, especially given their huge influence overall, not just in longtermism. Would be a tough balance to be sure, but not impossible imo.
[Edited to add: I see Chris Leong said something similar at the same time.]
I think there’s a tricky balance to strike.
If you think that option A is much better for the world than option B, then the more open and honest you are about thinking that A is much better, the more discouraged people working on B will feel.
But if you try to be more encouraging about option B, there’s a real risk that people won’t realise how much better you think option A is, and will work on B. If you’re correct that option A is much better, then this is a terrible outcome. In that case, it would probably be overall more important to encourage people to work on A than to be encouraging to people working on B.
So I have some sympathy for 80,000 Hours being honest about what they really think is best—and at a glance it doesn’t seem to me that they’re being unnecessarily discouraging about other areas. (I am sympathetic to longtermism though, so maybe that colours my perspective.)
What exactly is the change you’d like to see? Stopping saying that working on x-risk/longtermism is important, or still saying that but nevertheless being more encouraging about other areas?
(There’s the question of whether 80,000 Hours should say what they actually think, or should moderate it on the basis that other people would disagree with them about how important longtermism is.)
The latter. I very much believe they should do what they think right. Nevertheless, I feel like some changes to their wording and the (visual) representation of other cause areas might be a good idea, especially given their huge influence overall, not just in longtermism. Would be a tough balance to be sure, but not impossible imo.