Maybe reconsider whether EA is the right community for you if you don’t agree with the agenda of the people at the top. They are setting your ability to think critically in many places, with who they fund, who is treated as cool and respected as an expert, etc.
You’re right, part of the problem is that you feel lumped in with them even if you have no decisionmaking power over what they do. Don’t fight their battles for them if you don’t even agree— let go of the baggage and think for yourself.
I don’t identify as EA. You can check my post history. I try to form my own views and not defer to leadership or celebrities.
I agree with you that there’s a problem with safetywashing, conflicts of interest and bad epistemic practises in mainstream EA AI safety discourse.
My problem with this post is that the way of presenting the arguments is like “wake up, I’m right and you are wrong”, directed to a group of people that includes people that have never thought about what you’re talking about, and people that agree with you.
I also agree that the truth sometimes irritates, but that doesn’t mean that if something irritates I should trust it more.
Maybe reconsider whether EA is the right community for you if you don’t agree with the agenda of the people at the top. They are setting your ability to think critically in many places, with who they fund, who is treated as cool and respected as an expert, etc.
You’re right, part of the problem is that you feel lumped in with them even if you have no decisionmaking power over what they do. Don’t fight their battles for them if you don’t even agree— let go of the baggage and think for yourself.
I feel lumped in with them because you use second person plural. It’s not a glitch, it’s a direct consequence of how you write.
What I say is: maybe you’re right with the pause agenda, I don’t know.
But if you come to a group of people saying “you are just wrong” this is not engaging, and then I feel irritated instead of considering your case.
You feel lumped in with them bc you identify as an EA.
Sometimes the truth irritates.
I don’t identify as EA. You can check my post history. I try to form my own views and not defer to leadership or celebrities.
I agree with you that there’s a problem with safetywashing, conflicts of interest and bad epistemic practises in mainstream EA AI safety discourse.
My problem with this post is that the way of presenting the arguments is like “wake up, I’m right and you are wrong”, directed to a group of people that includes people that have never thought about what you’re talking about, and people that agree with you.
I also agree that the truth sometimes irritates, but that doesn’t mean that if something irritates I should trust it more.