Co-founded Nonlinear.org, an x-risk incubator. Also into web3, history, rapid learning, complex systems.
DM on twitter for faster response: www.twitter.com/emersonspartz
Emerson Spartz
Karma: 874
Kat just added context below, but I’ll also note that the ‘transport drugs across a country border’ story is wildly distorted and we will provide evidence in the forthcoming post that we’re working hard on.
Thanks for updating this! This points at something that concerned me about the structure of the original post—Alice or Chloe accuse me of something, but (in the event it was actually covered in my one conversation with Ben) my response to it (or, rather, Ben’s paraphrase) might only be included 8,000 words later, and still likely missing important context I would want to add.
I really respect that even in the middle of all this you (and other members of the LW team) still team leave comments like these.
I think serious mistakes were made in how this situation was handled but I have never doubted that you guys are trying your best to help the community, and comments like this are proof of that.
Thanks for doing this, Nathan! I’m finding these results interesting and informative and I expect this to elevate to the discourse.
I agree that if it were just a few disputed claims that would be a a reasonable thing to do, there are so many. And there is so much nuance.
Here is one example, however. This took us hours to prepare, just to rebut a single false claim:https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/5pksH3SbQzaniX96b/a-quick-update-from-nonlinear
Neither!
I find the idea of doing that absolutely awful and I’ve never done anything like that. Unfortunately, it’s a lie there is no possibility of defending myself from, since it’s hearsay from an anonymous source.
It was not remotely enough time to actually rebut all of the false claims and we told him so. We assumed that would be the first of many calls—it would take at least a week to clear things up—and then he just surprised us by posting.
This was twisted to make me seem like a villain. I recommended it as a book specifically to read to be able to defend against unethical people who use those tactics offensively—Defense Against the Dark Arts.
Yes, that is incorrect. One of many such factual inaccuracies and why we told Ben to give us a week. The exact date is not simple to explain, since she gradually began working with us, but we will clarify ASAP.
Can you explain? She did eat.
I appreciate your willingness to update if we provide sufficient evidence to do so!
The reason we urge everyone to withhold judgment is because even what currently look like “uncontested/incontestable claims” are, in fact, very much contestable.
For example: “(Kat’s text screenshotted above is pretty blatant here).”I agree that it does indeed look blatant here. But when you see the full context—the parts Alice conspicuously did not include—the meaning will change radically, to the point where you will likely question Alice’s other claims and ‘evidence’.
There is a reason courtrooms give both sides equal chances to make their case before they ask the jury to decide.
It is very difficult for people to change their minds later, and most people assume that if you’re on trial, you must be guilty, which is why judges remind juries about “innocent before proven guilty”.
This is one of the foundations of our legal system, something we learned over thousands of years of trying to get better at justice. You’re just assuming I’m guilty and saying that justifies not giving me a chance to present my evidence.
Also, if we post another comment thread a week later, who will see it? EAF/LW don’t have sufficient ways to resurface old but important content.
Re: “my guess is Ben’s sources have received dozens of calls”—well, your guess is wrong, and you can ask them to confirm this.
You also took my email strategically out of context to fit the Emerson-is-a-horned-CEO-villain narrative. Here’s the full one:
This is interesting and useful, thanks for doing it!
I’m finding these surveys useful, this one in particular—thanks for doing them!
Sadly, this feature turned out to be quite the technical challenge.
Yes, that counts as AI-safety related :)
@Ben Pace Can you please add at the top of the post “Nonlinear disputes at least 85 of the claims in this post and intends to publish a detailed point-by-point response.
They also published this short update giving an example of the kind of evidence they plan to demonstrate.”
We keep hearing from people who don’t know this. Our comments get buried, so they think your summary at the bottom contains the entirety of our response, though it is just the tip of the iceberg. As a result, they think your post marks the end of the story, and not the opening chapter.