I can actually read most of this and feel understanding, but pieces like “I think, if it survives at all, EA will” or “I’m already beating you and” strain that capacity quite a bit.
You do actually disagree with some people, and maybe making that clear and spelling it out is worth it. But you’re taking further people, who could be sympathetic but are still deciding how they feel, and pushing them away by trying to paint a community they may care about as hollow and death-bound.
As far as I can tell, posts like this don’t help anyone, neither you, nor Pause, nor EA. You’re expecting antagonism to wake people up, but is that really an effective strategy for building support? Look at your donors, look at those who are still more aligned with EA than you are. Did they come from one of the many angry-style posts you’ve written recently, or one of the earlier or more substantive ones arguing for the core of Pause and why it’s needed? You know your donors better, but I know where I’d be making my bet.
I think an antagonistic tone actually works well in recruiting folks who are still EA-adjacent, and may still be somewhat-affiliated with the community, or otherwise care a lot about some EA-branded cause areas like AI, but are weary of the discourse and cultural norms and professionalization of the space. For a space that supposedly loves criticism, EA really doesn’t make real space for criticizing a lot of key assumptions and orgs, and it often feels like, if you car about certain causes that aren’t mainstream outside of the movement, you either stick around and keep your mouth shut, or stop seeking to help with those causes. Someone like Holly taking an antagonistic tone means that there are others out there who you could meet and organize with who might think about things in an EA-ish, systematic way...but who aren’t contained by organizational allegiance. And, I’d argue, that integrity is a breath of fresh air and I suspect is very effective in attracting disillusioned EAs
Disagreement is cool and awesome. Even intense disagreement (“I think this view is deeply misguided”). I really see no room for antagonism among two people that could be having an epistemically healthy conversation.
Thanks for confirming one of the problems I wrote about— here you are threatening not to care about a problem in the world because I made you uncomfortable. This is a constant threat from EAs, that I or the cause are not gonna have their support if I don’t fall in line with what they want to hear.
1) You should care to think about this because of the impact on the world. No matter how much I rub you the wrong way, you should have a burning curiosity to figure out if grassroots is promising. But you don’t— you want me to beg you to please consider it as a favor. No.
2) I already don’t have your support! You can’t threaten to take away something you are already withholding. You hold no cards. Like the AI companies at this point, PauseAI doesn’t need you. But if you want help because you came to that conclusion about how to help the world, great!
I think if your approach is causing you to think that Tristan is “threatening not to care” about AI risk, then you’re really missing the mark, Holly.
Tristan demonstrably has made pretty big personal sacrifices to work on AI, literally worked with Felix on your team on an AI Safety Camp project about arguing that grassroots Congressional outreach is good (I was also working on that team), and is continuing to look for opportunities to work on AI risk reduction during and after grad school.
Tristan is, in short, the kind of person that if you were looking to hire another person in DC, I’d be recommending to you to consider. He very much is aligned with your core strategy! If I had to guess, I’d guess that he considers himself to be a supporter of PauseAI US’s approach!
Given how you’re engaging on this thread, I’ll bet that you’ll reply to this post by saying something like, “see, his response this proves how pernicious EA culture is, that it can corrupt even people who should be on board.” I would politely ask you to consider the possibility instead that, at least sometimes, you’re shooting at the wrong targets.
I don’t see many productive ways this continues so I’ll keep it short.
If someone thinks you’re making poor decisions, and wants to see your downfall, silence is the best way to go about that. Engaging with you further is not, and should probably clue you in that that’s not their primary motivation.
Chalking up anything negative anyone says about your work as part of The Big Plot Against You closes the door to productive conversation quickly. You entrench yourself and flag that there’s little chance you change your mind, and I then question why I’m responding.
“PauseAI doesn’t need you” takes the door you were already closing and slams it shut. I truly hoped for better.
EAs can take any excuse they want not to join PauseAI, these^ are all great. I want people to come to the movement bc they want to pursue that intervention, not bc I was nice to them and never challenged their ideology. And, yes, there is a big world, so we don’t need you if you’re conflicted. I’d like you to at least doubt yourselves before you cause more damage as EA, though.
I can actually read most of this and feel understanding, but pieces like “I think, if it survives at all, EA will” or “I’m already beating you and” strain that capacity quite a bit.
You do actually disagree with some people, and maybe making that clear and spelling it out is worth it. But you’re taking further people, who could be sympathetic but are still deciding how they feel, and pushing them away by trying to paint a community they may care about as hollow and death-bound.
As far as I can tell, posts like this don’t help anyone, neither you, nor Pause, nor EA. You’re expecting antagonism to wake people up, but is that really an effective strategy for building support? Look at your donors, look at those who are still more aligned with EA than you are. Did they come from one of the many angry-style posts you’ve written recently, or one of the earlier or more substantive ones arguing for the core of Pause and why it’s needed? You know your donors better, but I know where I’d be making my bet.
I think an antagonistic tone actually works well in recruiting folks who are still EA-adjacent, and may still be somewhat-affiliated with the community, or otherwise care a lot about some EA-branded cause areas like AI, but are weary of the discourse and cultural norms and professionalization of the space. For a space that supposedly loves criticism, EA really doesn’t make real space for criticizing a lot of key assumptions and orgs, and it often feels like, if you car about certain causes that aren’t mainstream outside of the movement, you either stick around and keep your mouth shut, or stop seeking to help with those causes. Someone like Holly taking an antagonistic tone means that there are others out there who you could meet and organize with who might think about things in an EA-ish, systematic way...but who aren’t contained by organizational allegiance. And, I’d argue, that integrity is a breath of fresh air and I suspect is very effective in attracting disillusioned EAs
Disagreement is cool and awesome. Even intense disagreement (“I think this view is deeply misguided”). I really see no room for antagonism among two people that could be having an epistemically healthy conversation.
Fair enough. Would you consider yourself one of those disillusioned EAs that’s been attracted by the message?
Like Noah said, disagreement is great, closed-mindedness and antagonism is not.
Thanks for confirming one of the problems I wrote about— here you are threatening not to care about a problem in the world because I made you uncomfortable. This is a constant threat from EAs, that I or the cause are not gonna have their support if I don’t fall in line with what they want to hear.
1) You should care to think about this because of the impact on the world. No matter how much I rub you the wrong way, you should have a burning curiosity to figure out if grassroots is promising. But you don’t— you want me to beg you to please consider it as a favor. No.
2) I already don’t have your support! You can’t threaten to take away something you are already withholding. You hold no cards. Like the AI companies at this point, PauseAI doesn’t need you. But if you want help because you came to that conclusion about how to help the world, great!
I think if your approach is causing you to think that Tristan is “threatening not to care” about AI risk, then you’re really missing the mark, Holly.
Tristan demonstrably has made pretty big personal sacrifices to work on AI, literally worked with Felix on your team on an AI Safety Camp project about arguing that grassroots Congressional outreach is good (I was also working on that team), and is continuing to look for opportunities to work on AI risk reduction during and after grad school.
Tristan is, in short, the kind of person that if you were looking to hire another person in DC, I’d be recommending to you to consider. He very much is aligned with your core strategy! If I had to guess, I’d guess that he considers himself to be a supporter of PauseAI US’s approach!
Given how you’re engaging on this thread, I’ll bet that you’ll reply to this post by saying something like, “see, his response this proves how pernicious EA culture is, that it can corrupt even people who should be on board.” I would politely ask you to consider the possibility instead that, at least sometimes, you’re shooting at the wrong targets.
I like you, Dave, but you don’t get this part.
I don’t think pointing out problems with the effectiveness of your approach is the same as “threatening not to care”.
I don’t see many productive ways this continues so I’ll keep it short.
If someone thinks you’re making poor decisions, and wants to see your downfall, silence is the best way to go about that. Engaging with you further is not, and should probably clue you in that that’s not their primary motivation.
Chalking up anything negative anyone says about your work as part of The Big Plot Against You closes the door to productive conversation quickly. You entrench yourself and flag that there’s little chance you change your mind, and I then question why I’m responding.
“PauseAI doesn’t need you” takes the door you were already closing and slams it shut. I truly hoped for better.
EAs can take any excuse they want not to join PauseAI, these^ are all great. I want people to come to the movement bc they want to pursue that intervention, not bc I was nice to them and never challenged their ideology. And, yes, there is a big world, so we don’t need you if you’re conflicted. I’d like you to at least doubt yourselves before you cause more damage as EA, though.