sapphire

Karma: 1,479

sapphire Feb 4, 2023, 1:19 PM
11 points
2 ∶ 2
in reply to: fenneko’s comment on: EA, Sexual Harassment, and Abuse
The alleged perpetrator seems to be at least tolerated by some influential people. About Two years ago Anna Salomon wrote:
(1) X seems to me to precipitate psychotic episodes in his interlocutors surprisingly often, to come closer to advocating physical violence than I would like, and to have conversational patterns that often disorient his interlocutors and leave them believing different things while talking to X than they do a bit later.
(2) I don’t have overall advice that people ought to avoid X, in spite of (1), because it now seems to me that he is trying to help himself and others toward truth, and I think we’re bottlenecked on that enough that I could easily imagine (2) overshadowing (1) for individuals who are in a robust place (e.g., who don’t feel like they are trapped or “have to” talk to a person or do a thing) and who are choosing who they want to talk to. (There were parts of X’s conversational patterns that I was interpreting as less truth-conducive a couple years ago than I am now. I now think that this was partly because I was overanchored on the (then-recent) example of Brent, as well as because I didn’t understand part of how he was doing it, but it is possible that it is current-me who is wrong.) (As one example of a consideration that moved me here: a friend of mine whose epistemics I trust, and who has known X for a long time, said that she usually in the long-run ended up agreeing with her while-in-the-conversation self, and not with her after-she-left-the-conversation self.)
Also I was a bit discomfited when my previous LW comment was later cited by folks who weren’t all that LW-y in their conversational patterns as a general “denouncement” of X, although I should probably have predicted this, so, that’s another reason I’d like to try to publicly state my revised views. To be clear, I do not currently wish to “denounce” X, and I don’t even think that’s what I was trying to do last time, although I think the fault was mostly mine that some people read my previous comment as a general denouncement.
Also, to be clear, what I am saying here is just that on the strength of my own evidence (which is not all evidence), (1) and (2) seem true to me. I am not at all trying to be a court here, or to evaluate any objections anyone else may have to X, or to claim that there are no valid objections someone else might have, or anything like that. Just to share my own revised impression from my own limited first-hand observations.
One year ago she wrote:
I hereby apologize for the role I played in X’s ostracism from the community, which AFAICT was both unjust and harmful to both the community and X. There’s more to say here, and I don’t yet know how to say it well. But the shortest version is that in the years leading up to my original comment X was criticizing me and many in the rationality and EA communities intensely, and, despite our alleged desire to aspire to rationality, I and I think many others did not like having our political foundations criticized/eroded, nor did I and I think various others like having the story I told myself to keep stably “doing my work” criticized/eroded. This, despite the fact that attempting to share reasoning and disagreements is in fact a furthering of our alleged goals and our alleged culture. The specific voiced accusations about X were not “but he keeps criticizing us and hurting our feelings and/or our political support” — and nevertheless I’m sure this was part of what led to me making the comment I made above (though it was not my conscious reason), and I’m sure it led to some of the rest of the ostracism he experienced as well. This isn’t the whole of the story, but it ought to have been disclosed clearly in the same way that conflicts of interest ought to be disclosed clearly. And, separately but relatedly, it is my current view that it would be all things considered much better to have X around talking to people in these communities, though this will bring friction.
There’s broader context I don’t know how to discuss well, which I’ll at least discuss poorly:
Should the aspiring rationality community, or any community, attempt to protect its adult members from misleading reasoning, allegedly manipulative conversational tactics, etc., via cautioning them not to talk to some people? My view at the time of my original (Feb 2019) comment was “yes”. My current view is more or less “heck no!”; protecting people from allegedly manipulative tactics, or allegedly misleading arguments, is good — but it should be done via sharing additional info, not via discouraging people from encountering info/conversations. The reason is that more info tends to be broadly helpful (and this is a relatively fool-resistant heuristic even if implemented by people who are deluded in various ways), and trusting who can figure out who ought to restrict their info-intake how seems like a doomed endeavor (and does not degrade gracefully with deludedness/corruption in the leadership). (Watching the CDC on covid helped drive this home for me. Belatedly noticing how much something-like-doublethink I had in my original beliefs about X and related matters also helped drive this home for me.)
Should some organizations/people within the rationality and EA communities create simplified narratives that allow many people to pull in the same direction, to feel good about each others’ donations to the same organizations, etc.? My view at the time of my original (Feb 2019) comment was “yes”; my current view is “no — and especially not via implicit or explicit pressures to restrict information-flow.” Reasons for updates same as above.
It is nevertheless the case that X has had a tendency to e.g. yell rather more than I would like. For an aspiring rationality community’s general “who is worth ever talking to?” list, this ought to matter much less than the above. Insofar as a given person is trying to create contexts where people reliably don’t yell or something, they’ll want to do whatever they want to do; but insofar as we’re creating a community-wide include/exclude list (as in e.g. this comment on whether to let X speak at SSC meetups), it is my opinion that X ought to be on the “include” list.
Thoughts/comments welcome, and probably helpful for getting to shared accurate pictures about any of what’s above.

sapphire Feb 3, 2023, 3:23 PM
25 points
40 ∶ 44
on: EA, Sexual Harassment, and Abuse
This is what happens when you centralize power so much. I’m so sorry for what happened. So many people remaining silent and covering for abusers.

(it shouldn’t matter but for the record I have multiple partners)

sapphire Feb 2, 2023, 5:22 PM
0 points
8 ∶ 9
on: Epistemic health is a community issue
Nothing serious can change until the whole ‘all important decisions are made by about ten people who dont see any need to get community buy in’ issue is solved.

sapphire Jan 29, 2023, 10:02 AM
5 points
2 ∶ 0
on: How how shorter AI timelines been affecting you, and how have you been responding to them?
I’ve honestly developed some pretty serious mental health issues. It’s just miserable to worry about everyone dying or worse.

sapphire Jan 28, 2023, 5:46 AM
12 points
8 ∶ 5
in reply to: Throwaway012723’s comment on: Have worries about EA? Want to chat?
Really brave of you to do this. It’s important.

sapphire Jan 19, 2023, 3:02 AM
3 points
1 ∶ 2
in reply to: 1mkl32j201091’s comment on: CEA didn’t want Zvi Moshowitz, Zeynep Tufekci, or Helen Chu in the Covid documentary they commissioned?
My friend? Yes. CEA? No.

I dont actually think there exists a genuinely good record to exclude them.

sapphire Jan 19, 2023, 2:44 AM
5 points
1 ∶ 3
in reply to: Nick Whitaker’s comment on: CEA didn’t want Zvi Moshowitz, Zeynep Tufekci, or Helen Chu in the Covid documentary they commissioned?
I’m sure unless I was just being lied to? I was talking to the film maker directly in the screenshot. We talked in person about this at length as well. I find it pretty hard to understand why CEA would want to exclude Zvi or Zeynep. But I’m pretty sure this happened. I’m aware of a lot of hard to explain behavior. but I gave this example because Im pretty sure I correctly understand what happened and can substantiate the claims.

CEA didn’t want Zvi Moshowitz, Zeynep Tufekci, or Helen Chu in the Covid documentary they commissioned?

sapphireJan 19, 2023, 1:32 AM

−19 points

13 comments1 min readEA link

sapphire Jan 16, 2023, 11:10 AM
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: Are “Bad People” Really Unwelcome in EA?
Empirically it feels hard to get much credit/egoist-value from helping people? Maybe your experience has just been different. But I don’t find helping people very helpful for improving my status.

sapphire Jan 16, 2023, 8:27 AM
9 points
4 ∶ 3
on: Thread for discussing Bostrom’s email and apology
This was posted in 2019 by a group of EAs from underrepresented groups. Wish it had been taken seriously.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/nqgE6cR72kyyfwZNL/making-discussions-in-ea-groups-inclusive

sapphire Jan 16, 2023, 8:23 AM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Making discussions in EA groups inclusive
This is great. Wish it had been taken seriously in 2019. Deserves to be back on the front page!

sapphire Jan 15, 2023, 11:00 AM
5 points
4 ∶ 9
in reply to: Lukas_Gloor’s comment on: Thread for discussing Bostrom’s email and apology
I think the connection is weaker but there is still a lot of really wacky social dynamics.
“In one case I mentioned to someone that i was surprised the SSC subreddit had people posting the white surpremacist 14 words openly with others approving. This person then spent a year+ worried that I was infiltrating their group as a woke sjw so I could get people canceled. They never mentioned it to me but was just very jumpy and kind of unfriendly. Like 2 years later they were like oh ok thanks for not doing that and I was like ??? ”
There are also still quite a few rationalists discussing and promoting legitimately far right sources. Multiple people I met at the NYC rat meetup were literally into Qanon. Almost all the rationalists I know who got involved with the far right started with HBD.

sapphire Jan 14, 2023, 12:51 PM
47 points
28 ∶ 14
on: Thread for discussing Bostrom’s email and apology
(reposting from the ‘does it matter’ thread)
It is commonly theorized that having friends who hold a viewpoint should make one more charitable to that viewpoint. This has not been the case with HBD. I have a close friend of around decade who has gotten increasingly obsessed with HBD. In general they are a smart and friendly person. But the things they has started espousing have become really shocking.
Example of their views: If Black people are not heavily under-represented in a cognitively demanding organization that is strong evidence the organization is racist against White and Asian individuals!
Obviously these points of view are completely at odds with any sort of fair and inclusive community or organization. They have also moved further and further rightwing. This resulted in a lot of personal problems when I came out as trans. They don’t ‘just’ have some abstract objections, they were quite toxic to an old and supportive friend when she was having a hard time. They explicitly admit that a huge driving force for them moving rightward in general is belief in HBD. The logic for why is not hard to see. If you believe in HBD you can start to feel ‘persecuted’ by people on the left or center-left. It’s easy to start sympathizing with the right and far right.

I’ve been in the rationalist community for over a decade and the EA community for a somewhat shorter period. I have seen tons of seemingly kind and reasonable friends become increasingly far-right after they got into HBD. Im honestly not surprised FLI was considering funding an explicit far-right nazi-adjacent group. The sympathies run deep. Neo-reaction has been close to the EA and rationalist communities for a very large fraction of our history.
It would be extremely hypocritical for me to hold people to views they no longer support. I endorsed HBD in 2015 and 2016. Like many rationalists I was introduced to HBD by reading Slatestarcodex. Promoting HBD in anyway, including privately exposing people to the ideas, is one of the biggest regrets of my life. It is a seriously harmful philosophy. Im very, very sorry for any negative impact my actions may have caused. For obvious reasons I have sympathy for people who have gotten into the racist pipeline. I honestly only got out because the right is so shitty to trans people and is pretty anti-vegan. Like many eggs I had a lot of trans friends. Independently I was quite convinced veganism was a positive lifestyle. HBD is a very harmful pseudo-science and it is totally unacceptable that people with power in Effective Altruism believe in it.
I truly hope the EA movement can move toward a better future free from this toxicity.
What links here?

sapphire Jan 14, 2023, 12:43 PM
8 points
3 ∶ 3
on: Does it matter that some EAs think black people are stupider than white people?
It is commonly theorized that having friends who hold a viewpoint should make one more charitable to that viewpoint. This has not been the case with HBD. I have a close friend of around decade who has gotten increasingly obsessed with HBD. In general they are a smart and friendly person. But the things they have started espousing have become really shocking.
Example of their beliefs: If Black people are not heavily under-represented in a ‘cognitively demanding’ organization that is very strong evidence the organization is racist against White and Asian individuals!
Obviously this point of view is completely at odds with any sort of fair and inclusive community or organization. They have also moved further and further rightwing. This resulted in a lot of personal problems when I came out as trans. They don’t ‘just’ have some abstract objections, they were quite toxic to an old and supportive friend when she was having a hard time. They explicitly admit that a huge driving force for them moving rightward in general is belief in HBD. The logic for why is not hard to see. If you believe in HBD you can start to feel ‘persecuted’ by people on the left or center-left. It’s easy to start sympathizing with the right and far right.

I’ve been in the rationalist community for over a decade and the EA community for a somewhat shorter period. I have seen tons of seemingly kind and reasonable friends become increasingly far-right after they got into HBD. Im honestly not surprised FLI was considering funding an explicit far-right nazi-adjacent group. The sympathies run deep. Neo-reaction has been close to the EA and rationalist communities for a very large fraction of our history.
It would be extremely hypocritical for me to hold people to views they no longer support. I endorsed HBD in 2015 and 2016. Like many rationalists I was introduced to HBD by reading Slatestarcodex. Promoting HBD in anyway, including privately exposing people to the ideas, is one of the biggest regrets of my life. It is a seriously harmful philosophy. Im very, very sorry for any negative impact my actions may have caused. For obvious reasons I have sympathy for people who have gotten into the racist pipeline. I honestly only got out because the right is so shitty to trans people and is pretty anti-vegan. Like many eggs I had a lot of trans friends. Independently I was quite convinced veganism was a positive lifestyle. them being so shitty on slam dunk issues like trans rights made me start rethinking other parts of the ideology I had started adopting. HBD is a very harmful pseudo-science and it is totally unacceptable that people with power in Effective Altruism believe in it.
I truly hope the EA movement can move toward a better future free from this toxicity.

sapphire Jan 13, 2023, 7:45 AM
7 points
14 ∶ 12
in reply to: Sharmake’s comment on: CEA statement on Nick Bostrom’s email
A pretty large fraction of engaged EAs believe in HBD. Its quite common the deeper you go into the community.

sapphire Jan 12, 2023, 9:52 AM
−61 points
10 ∶ 24
on: [Linkpost] Nick Bostrom’s “Apology for an Old Email”
Scientific Racism is definitely considered acceptable in the EA community and lots of the leadership support it. I would bet Bostrom still supports HBD. He doesn’t even deny this in his apology!

sapphire Jan 11, 2023, 10:08 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Greg_Colbourn ⏸️ ’s comment on: AGI and the EMH: markets are not expecting aligned or unaligned AI in the next 30 years
If Microsoft takes the lead among big tech companies then the market cap doubling in five years would be reasonable. Though its unclear they will pull that off. If timelines are fast and Microsoft stays in the lead 10T isn’t crazy. It’s also worth noting that even if the AI thesis doesn’t play out Microsoft is a 25PE blue chip with very capable management. So the downside here is pretty low as far as buying tech stocks goes. Buying call options requires getting the timing right.

sapphire Jan 11, 2023, 7:06 AM
8 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: aog’s comment on: AGI and the EMH: markets are not expecting aligned or unaligned AI in the next 30 years
If OpenAI is working closely with Microsoft than MSFT becomes an extremely attractive investment. Microsoft is in talks to invest 10B. If this goes through I would strongly advise investing in MSFT. Seems like one of the best ways to get exposure.

sapphire Jan 11, 2023, 7:03 AM
6 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: basil.halperin’s comment on: AGI and the EMH: markets are not expecting aligned or unaligned AI in the next 30 years
I did say some of the best investments are private. But there are good public investments (MSFT, TSM, SMSN, ASML). Nothing in investing is guaranteed but trying to invest in AI companies seems like a much better bet than shorting interest rates. Also many rationalists are rich enough they can try to invest in various private companies.

sapphire Jan 11, 2023, 5:01 AM
1 point
4 ∶ 2
in reply to: Joel Becker’s comment on: AGI and the EMH: markets are not expecting aligned or unaligned AI in the next 30 years
I read the appendix and it doesn’t seem very convincing. For example they bring up openAI but you can buy MSFT stock. MSFT already owns a chunk of openAI and is in talks to own a much larger share.

I do not think the appendix 1 is likely to convince people shorting interest rates is the best way to express an AI thesis.

sapphire

CEA didn’t want Zvi Moshow­itz, Zeynep Tufekci, or He­len Chu in the Covid doc­u­men­tary they com­mis­sioned?

CEA didn’t want Zvi Moshowitz, Zeynep Tufekci, or Helen Chu in the Covid documentary they commissioned?