ElliotJDavies

Karma: 2,026

ElliotJDavies Feb 1, 2024, 7:41 PM
34 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jason’s comment on: EV investigation into Owen and Community Health
While I don’t think that was inappropriate, it seems fair to give Owen at least some lead time to prepare a statement of his perspective on the matter.
I think your right about this, and have changed my mind.

ElliotJDavies Feb 1, 2024, 4:32 PM
2 points
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: Jason’s comment on: EV investigation into Owen and Community Health
I would generally view reaching out to a reasonable number of active Forum participants individually as not brigading. This is less likely to create a sufficient mass effect to mislead observers about the community’s range of views.
I think about it this way. If a post was written critically about me, I would suspect 5-10% of people that know me in the community to see it, and 0.5% to comment. If I reach out to everyone I have ever been friendly with, I expect these numbers would be 50% and 5%, respectively. In other words, there would be 10x more comments defending me if I reach out to friends than if I don’t.

I think for independent observers, reading comments in fictional scenario above, it’s useful to know whether comments were of unsolicited or not.

A small group of strong-vote wielding users can significantly effect the course of discussion on the Forum through their voting.
Totally agree. Why would the same not be true of comments?

ElliotJDavies Feb 1, 2024, 11:19 AM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Akhil’s comment on: Cause area report: Antimicrobial Resistance
I wrote a report for CE on an AMR idea; the cost-effectiveness analyses of which will be released soon and I will post here when they are!
Hey Akhil, is there any update here?

ElliotJDavies Jan 31, 2024, 10:41 AM
8 points
7 ∶ 5
in reply to: Kat Woods’s comment on: EV investigation into Owen and Community Health
Astroturfing and troll farms are different from friends and people on your side saying their opinion
This is correct. What I am talking about is brigading.

Astroturfing and troll farms are only similar in the mechanism behind their ability to distort public opinion. That mechanism is: People are influenced by the tone and volume of comments they read.
Are you saying you’re against people being allowed to tell their friends and supporters about something they consider to be unethical and encouraging them to vote and comment according to their conscience?
Yes, this is brigading. There are things you can do mitigate this brigading effect, for example: (1) Begin comments with “I am here from …” or “This post was shared by...”. (2) Commenters acknowledge, when asked, that the post was shared with them.

Take your case (i.e. Ben Pace’s post on nonlinear), neither (1) or (2) was done. In fact, I found myself needing to comment alluding to this effect, after I confirmed this was the case with one of your collaborators.

ElliotJDavies Jan 31, 2024, 10:18 AM
40 points
17 ∶ 6
in reply to: Kat Woods’s comment on: EV investigation into Owen and Community Health
Why would it be bad if he was given advance warning about this report?

Some people - to be completely frank, like yourself—will use advanced notice to schedule their friends, fans and colleagues to write defensive comments. A high concentration of these types of comments can distort the quality of the conversation. This is commonly referred to as brigading.

This strategy is so effective, that foreign governments have setup “troll-farms”, and companies have setup “astroturfing” operations to benefit from degrading the quality of certain conversations on the internet.
Also, it does say in the document that Owen was given advanced notice. His document says that he saw the draft and disagreed with aspects of it that they didn’t address in the post.
I would create a distinction between giving someone a read of a draft ahead of time, and actively communicating the date and time something is posted.

Edit: Added third paragraph, changed wording on first sentence of second paragraph.

ElliotJDavies Jan 31, 2024, 10:03 AM
4 points
5 ∶ 9
on: EV investigation into Owen and Community Health
There’s been some complaints from a banned EA Forum user that the timing of this post, and the timing of comments that bolster the character of Owen, have been coordinated. Whilst I think it’s unlikely this is the case, I would love to see the following:

- Confirmation from OP (@EV UK Board) that Owen was not given advanced warning on the posting of this report. Or if he was, some discussion around the potential issues with doing so.

- Some further discussion in the EA Forum team, and perhaps rules set, on coordinated posting (AKA “brigading”).

ElliotJDavies Jan 15, 2024, 1:25 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Patrick Gruban 🔸’s comment on: Cause-Generality Is Hard If Some Causes Have Higher ROI
In the business context, you could imagine a recruiter having the option to buy a booth at a university specialising in the area the company is working in vs. buying one at a broad career fair of a top university. While the specialised university may bring more people that have trained in and are specialised in your area, you might still go for the top university as talent there might have overall greater potential, has the ability to more easily pivot or can contribute in more general areas like leadership, entrepreneurship, communications or similar.
I think this is a spot on analogy, and something we’ve discussed in our group a lot.

ElliotJDavies Dec 20, 2023, 12:47 PM
20 points
18 ∶ 5
on: Effective Aspersions: How the Nonlinear Investigation Went Wrong
Meta note: I’m not going to spend much more time on nonlinear threads, since I think it’s among the poorer uses of my time. With this in mind, I hope people don’t take unilateral actions (e.g. deanonymizing Chloe or Alice) after discussing in this thread, because I suspect at this point threads like these filter for specific people and are less representative of the EA community as a whole.

ElliotJDavies Dec 17, 2023, 3:21 PM
3 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Sean_o_h’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
Oh thanks for flagging, I will retract it now

ElliotJDavies Dec 15, 2023, 9:42 PM
3 points
2 ∶ 5
in reply to: Habryka [Deactivated]’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
As we later received more screenshots, it seems like we actually received definitive confirmation that the conversation on that date did indeed not result in Alice getting food.
I’m waiting for Ben, or someone else, to make a table of claims, counter claims, and what the evidence shows. Because nonlinear providing evidence that doesn’t support their claims seems to be a common occurance.

~~Just to give a new example,~~ ~~Kat screenshots herself~~ ~~replying “~~~~mediating! Appreciate people not talking to loud on the way back~~ [...] ” here, to provide evidence supporting that there was not a substantial discussion that occurred. However, I can only interpret the use of “mediating!” to indicate that there was in-fact a substantial amount of discussion at play.

Edit: Retracted as correctly pointed out by @Sean_o_h , I read meditation as mediation.

ElliotJDavies Dec 14, 2023, 10:37 PM
5 points
1 ∶ 0
on: EV updates: FTX settlement and the future of EV
Excited to hear both of these announcements!

ElliotJDavies Dec 14, 2023, 7:48 PM
12 points
3 ∶ 1
in reply to: Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
This sounds right, but the counterfactual (no social accountability) seems worse to me, so I am operating on the assumption it’s a necessary evil.

I live high trust country, which has very little of this social accountability, i.e. if someone does something potentially rude or unacceptable in public, they are given the benefit of the doubt. However, I expect this works because others are employed, full time, to hold people accountable. I.e. police officers, ticket inspectors, traffic wardens. I don’t think we have this in the wider Effective Altruism community right now.

ElliotJDavies Dec 13, 2023, 11:45 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: JoshuaBlake’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
Thanks for providing context here, similar to Vaipan, I wasn’t sure why people were disagree/downvoting me.

ElliotJDavies Dec 13, 2023, 11:41 PM
4 points
0 ∶ 4
in reply to: Habryka [Deactivated]’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
I’ve been thinking about whether there is some kind of informal court or arbitration system that would allow the social pressure here to be less driven by people trying to individually enact social enforcement
My model has been there should be social enforcement for both poor epistemic practices and rude/unkind communication.
I have been an active commenter in both posts, with a goal of social pressure in mind (i.e. providing accountability and a social pressure to not behave inappropriately towards/with your employees).
I’d be interested to hear meta level criticisms of my approach (e.g. “social pressure is inherently bad”). Because, whilst I don’t want witch hunting that employs poor epistemic practices, I do think social pressure plays an important role in stabilising communities. Perhaps someone can change my mind on this? If you do change my mind, I’ll certainly comment a lot less.

ElliotJDavies Dec 13, 2023, 12:47 AM
36 points
7 ∶ 4
in reply to: Kat Woods’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
We show Chloe’s work contract in the third row of the very first table.
Can I confirm I am seeing the correct image. I see a screenshot of a google document. As oppose to contract signed by both parties. Would you be able to confirm this contract was signed by both parties?
The link you share isn’t saying that pharmacies are illegal, it’s saying that they sometimes sell counterfeit drugs, and that’s illegal.
It indeed looks like the article I linked was related to counterfeit drugs, and not necessarily dispensing drugs without prescription. Although, I still suspect the reason adderall is accessible in tourist areas, is not related to their inherent legality, but instead some of the themes this article. I will research this further and make edits below.

I googled it, asked ChatGPT to search for it, and asked a lawyer friend of mine if they’ve ever heard of somebody being arrested for traveling with a single pack of ADHD medicine without a prescription. Nothing showed up (except for going to a place like Japan with famously strict laws around that).

If I understand these complaints to have been made in 2021, ChatGPT was launched in Nov 2022. Is it possible you are mistaken here?

If I understand you correctly, you were aware that by asking your employee to bring drugs across the border, she would be committing a crime?
What links here?
- Kat Woods's comment on Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims by Kat Woods (Dec 13, 2023, 1:24 AM; 5 points)

ElliotJDavies Dec 13, 2023, 12:18 AM
13 points
30 ∶ 18
in reply to: Yarrow🔸’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
Perhaps something missed from your list. The lack of moral seriousness regarding the value of the money being spent. I can imagine my global development and animal welfare colleagues, would be pretty displeased to learn that nonlinear has received over 500,000 USD in funding.

From reading into this discussion, including the linked appendix document. There’s no reason for me to think that they were ready to receive this amount of money, or likely to use it effectively.

ElliotJDavies Dec 13, 2023, 12:12 AM
11 points
6 ∶ 7
in reply to: Geoffrey Miller’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
I agree with @Habryka that this comment is underspecified and likely written without proper review of the appendix linked. I suspect many readers are likely to conflate disputed with debunked, and this comment plays into that. This works so well, and it’s use is so widespread, that it has a name, FUD.

In the comments below, I have asked Spencer Greenberg to specify the most important claims he feels have been repudiated, and why he thinks so. I expect the answer will be genuinely elucidating to me.

ElliotJDavies Dec 12, 2023, 11:29 PM
28 points
12 ∶ 5
in reply to: spencerg’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
(3) I didn’t do a detailed look at every row in the “Short summary overview table”, but for the ones I did look into in more detail, I found Nonlinear’s counter evidence to be compelling. That table is organized by claim and is in an easy-to-navigate structure, so I suggest people take a look for themselves at the evidence Nonlinear provided regarding whatever claims they think are important.

I would have loved to hear in your own words the most important claims that you think have been rebutted, and why you think so. When I look through the appendix document, I see a tangle of screenshots; mildly to moderately related points about these screenshots; and subjective claims about the ex-employees’ personal dispositions. I am not sure if this is because nonlinear is highly dysfunctional, or whether this is practicing a “[...] see what sticks” strategy.

Taking two important claims from Ben’s post. (1) Chloe wasn’t paid what she was promised (2) The employees were asked to transport drugs across a border.

(1) The first thing any union employee, HR person, or employment lawyer will ask: Was there a contract and what does it say?

When I come away from reading the appendix, I am unable to answer this, and my followup question remains also unanswered.

(2) The screenshots and related claims are even more confusing in this case. I’m left with the impression that it was pretty common for the nonlinear team to make these kinds of requests, including to “load up” on antibiotics. This is a pretty strange professional culture, from my perspective. So whilst I can see that the screenshot does not mention any recreational drugs, it’s not updating me negatively towards the likeliness of the claim.

Also, a quick legal note: it’s necessarily legal to fly with drugs, even if you purchased them legitimately. Buying drugs without a prescription in Mexico, and flying them to the US where you require a prescription, would be a crime.

Edit: it looks to me like the Mexican government is trying to shut down illegal pharmacies that dispense these kinds of medications without prescriptions. So they likely would have been both illegal to purchase in Mexico and illegal to import into the US.

ElliotJDavies 12 Dec 2023 17:58 UTC
26 points
5 ∶ 7
in reply to: spencerg’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
1) Do you have any concerns the section above on Ben Pace could be considered an ad hominem attack? I.e. attacking someone’s character rather than their claims? ^[1]

2) How long do you think it would have been reasonable for Ben Pace to wait? With the benefit of hindsight, we can see it has taken nonlinear 96 days to write a response to his post. ^[2]

3) What specific claims do you think have been rebutted? Perhaps you can quote Ben’s original piece; link to the evidence which disproves it; and include your interpretation of what said evidence shows.
1. ^
  Whilst I think @John G. Halstead comment could have been written better. I agree the question needs to be asked.
2. ^
  It’s taken 1 year and 29 days if considering the first time these comments were made https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/L4S2NCysoJxgCBuB6/announcing-nonlinear-emergency-funding?commentId=5P75dFuKLo894MQFf

ElliotJDavies 12 Dec 2023 15:17 UTC
33 points
36 ∶ 21
in reply to: frances_lorenz’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
In my opinion, including a photo section was surprising and came across as near completely misunderstanding the nature of Ben’s post. It is going to make it a bit hard to read any further with even consideration
In addition to the overall tone of this post being generally unprofessional.