What I feel upset about is that EA isn’t the kind of group anymore that wanted to do grassroots advocacy for AI Safety. Early EA would have been all over it. Now EAs want to be part of building AI. I’m not wanting like a trade where you listen to me and I listen to you in exchange. I know your arguments in and out. You are just wrong and you don’t care about finding out what is right— you’re protecting your conclusions. That’s a betrayal to yourselves.
There’s many different people in EA with different takes.
By claiming “you are just wrong” in second person plural you are making it harder to people that are not in the “want to build AI” camp to engage with your object level arguments.
Why don’t you defend your point?
I imagine the people that are not part of the AI safety memeplex already could find them convincing. Why not engage with then?
Btw I’m undecided on what the right marginal actions are wrt AI and am trying to form my inside view.
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.
You’re right, I’m not.
What I feel upset about is that EA isn’t the kind of group anymore that wanted to do grassroots advocacy for AI Safety. Early EA would have been all over it. Now EAs want to be part of building AI. I’m not wanting like a trade where you listen to me and I listen to you in exchange. I know your arguments in and out. You are just wrong and you don’t care about finding out what is right— you’re protecting your conclusions. That’s a betrayal to yourselves.
There’s many different people in EA with different takes.
By claiming “you are just wrong” in second person plural you are making it harder to people that are not in the “want to build AI” camp to engage with your object level arguments.
Why don’t you defend your point?
I imagine the people that are not part of the AI safety memeplex already could find them convincing. Why not engage with then?
Btw I’m undecided on what the right marginal actions are wrt AI and am trying to form my inside view.
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.