Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸

Karma: 7,749

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 12 Oct 2025 23:50 UTC
6 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ben_West🔸’s comment on: Why I think building EA is important for making AI go well
No I’m just concerned that the overwhelming effect of training EAs to do safety stuff that’s highly dependent on where the frontier labs are is them working at frontier labs. In theory there’s plenty of technical stuff to do that’s helpful, but in practice working at a frontier lab is the attractor. There are also knock-on effects in EA as a culture and movement when working at frontier labs is a primary occupation for top talent.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 27 Sep 2025 17:56 UTC
50 points
8 ∶ 18
on: Why I think building EA is important for making AI go well
Counterargument: EA AI Safety is a talent program for Anthropic.
I wish it weren’t but that’s what’s going to continue happen if what the community has become pushes to grow. “Make AI go well” is code for their agenda. EA may be about morality but its answer on AI Safety is stuck and it is wrong. Anthropic’s agenda is not “up for renegotiation” at all. If you want to fix EA AI Safety it has to break out of the mentality 80k has done so much to put it in that the answer is to get a high-powered job working with AI companies or otherwise “playing the game”.

The good EA, the one I loved so much, was about being willing to do what was right even if it was scrappy and unglamorous (especially then bc it would be more neglected!). EA AI Safety today is sneering reviews of a book that could help rally the public bc insiders all know we’re doing this wacky Superalignment thing today, and something else tomorrow, but whatever the “reason” we always support Anthropic trying to achieve world domination. And the young EAs are scared not to be elite and sophisticated by agreeing, and it breaks my heart. Getting more kids into current EA would not teach them “flexible decisonmaking”.

EA needs to return to its roots in a way I gave up on waiting for before it needs to grow.
What links here?
- Davidmanheim's comment on Why I think building EA is important for making AI go well by Arden Koehler (5 Oct 2025 10:09 UTC; 8 points)

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 22 Sep 2025 18:24 UTC
7 points
4 ∶ 0
on: IABIED Review—An Unfortunate Miss
You are allowed to make these points, Darren, having written the book you want to see in the world!

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 29 Aug 2025 3:58 UTC
5 points
3 ∶ 0
on: Why I’m excited about AI safety talent development initiatives
What are you developing this talent for? I basically think Horizon is good, but recruiting for Anthropic is bad. So it wouldn’t surprise me if this ROI is actually negative.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 17 Jun 2025 21:06 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 4
in reply to: Sarah Cheng 🔸’s comment on: Holly_Elmore’s Shortform
I think you hit the nail on the head— this forum is not a safe space for me. Like you said, I’m an all-time top poster, and yet I get snobby discouragement on everything I write since I started working on Pause, with the general theme that advocacy is not smart enough for EAs (and a secondary theme of wanting to work for AI companies).
This is a serious problem given what the EA Forum was supposed to be. It’s not a problem with following your rules for polite posts, but it’s against something more important— the purpose of the Forum and of the EA community.
But, I’ve clearly reached the end of my rope, and since I’d like to keep my account and be able to post new stuff here, I’ll just stop commenting.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 16 Jun 2025 20:42 UTC
−69 points
1 ∶ 6
in reply to: Denkenberger🔸’s comment on: Holly_Elmore’s Shortform
I personally still have significant uncertainty as to the best course of action, and I understand you are under a lot of stress, but I don’t think this characterization is an effective way of shifting people towards your point of view.
Ah, the EA “fuck you”.

I see, so other people (😉) might not agree with me bc of how I say it, and rather than it being their responsibility to seek truth, that’s my fault for not behaving the way you— oops, I mean “they”— like. It’s just ineffective, so nobody listening has any responsibilities and should probably go back to working at an AI company.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 16 Jun 2025 20:39 UTC
10 points
5 ∶ 3
in reply to: Denkenberger🔸’s comment on: Holly_Elmore’s Shortform
As Carl says, society may only get one shot at a pause. So if we got it now, and not when we have a 10x speed up in AI development because of AI, I think that would be worse. It could certainly make sense now to build the field and to draft legislation. But it’s also possible to advocate for pausing when some threshold or trigger is hit, and not now. It’s also possible that advocating for an early pause burns bridges with people who might have supported a pause later.

This is so out of touch with the realities of opinion change. It sounds smart and it lets EAs and rationalists keep doing what they’re doing, which is why people repeat it. This claim that we would only get one shot at a pause is asinine— pause would become more popular as an option the more people were familiar with it. It’s only the AI industry and EA that do not like the idea of pausing and pretend like they’re gonna withdraw support that we actually never had if we do something they don’t like.

The main thing we can do as a movement is gain popular support by talking about the message. There is no reliable way to “time” asks. None of that makes any sense. Honestly, most people who give this argument are industry apologists who just want you feel out of your league if you do anything against their interests. Hardware overhang was the same shit.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 16 Jun 2025 18:01 UTC
9 points
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: Owen Cotton-Barratt’s comment on: The myth of AI “warning shots” as cavalry
No I’m angry that people feel affronted by me pointing out that normal warning shot discourse entailed hoping for a disaster without feeling much need make sure that would be helpful. They should be glad that they have a chance to catch themselves, but instead they silently downvote.

Just feels like so much of the vibe of this forum is people expecting to be catered to, like their support is some prize, rather than people wanting to find out for themselves how to help the world. A lot of EAs have felt comfortable dismissing PauseAI bc it’s not their vibe or they didn’t feel like the case was made in the right way or they think their friends won’t support it, and it drives me crazy bc aren’t they curious??? Don’t they want to think about how to address AI danger from every angle?

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 16 Jun 2025 0:50 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Owen Cotton-Barratt’s comment on: The myth of AI “warning shots” as cavalry
I was curious about guesses as to why this happens to me lately (a lot of upfront disagree votes and karma hovering around zero until the views are high enough) but getting that answer is still pretty hard for me to hear without being angry.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 15 Jun 2025 22:51 UTC
−2 points
9 ∶ 4
in reply to: Denkenberger🔸’s comment on: Holly_Elmore’s Shortform
To get a pause at any time you have to start asking now. It’s totally academic to ask about when exactly to pause and it’s not robust to try to wait until the last possible minute. Anyone taking pause advocacy seriously realizes this pretty quickly.

But honestly all I hear are excuses. You wouldn’t want to help me if Carl said it was the right thing to do or you’d have already realized what I said yourself. You wouldn’t be waiting for Carl’s permission or anyone else’s. What you’re looking for is permission to stay on this corrupt be-the-problem strategy and it shows.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 15 Jun 2025 22:37 UTC
−5 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: Owen Cotton-Barratt’s comment on: The myth of AI “warning shots” as cavalry
See I feel really jerked around by this audience seemingly needing their ideas or their character or their intent affirmed in every argument. As if Rapoport’s rules are a contract or something and I owe you ego service in exchange for you thinking about helping me stave off AI doom. Don’t you care what’s true? Aren’t you interested in my point, perhaps even my perspective on the way of thinking I reject? EAs didn’t used to say this about my style bc they agreed with me then, but now they have this high-road excuse not to listen to me. I’m now to the point where I think, “why don’t you guys prove yourselves to me?” Prove you care about what happens to people and not just about protecting your discourse.

If you want to turtle up because I was mean to your ontology, whatever. You were obviously never going to help anyway.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 15 Jun 2025 19:49 UTC
6 points
4 ∶ 4
in reply to: Denkenberger🔸’s comment on: Holly_Elmore’s Shortform
That’s not what Carl Shulman said, and the fact that people want to take it that way is telling. He messaged me recently to clarify that he meant unilateral pauses would be bad, something I still kind of disagree with but which isn’t something PauseAI advocates, and he said it way at the beginning of Pause talk. EAs just don’t want to arrest the tech momentum bc they see themselves as technocracy elite, not as humble grassroots organizers. They are disappointed at the chance we have to rally the public and want to find some way they don’t have to contribute to it.
People who identify as EAs in other countries might not be supportive of the AI companies, but they aren’t the ones on the ground in the Bay Area and DC that are letting me down so much. They aren’t the ones working for Anthropic or sitting on their fake board, listening to Dario’s claptrap that justifies what they want to do and believe anyway. They aren’t the ones denying my grant applications bc protests aren’t to their tastes. They aren’t the ones terrified of not having the vision to go for the Singularity, of being seen as “Luddites” for opposing a dangerous and recklessly pursued technology. Frankly they aren’t the influential ones.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 13 Jun 2025 21:36 UTC
7 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Aditya Nair’s comment on: Rethinking the Impact of Advocating Against Dairy
Totally. I gave up some kinds of influence and the highest point on the moral high ground by not being totally vegan but I’ve gained another kind of influence from people who were ready for reducetarianism.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 13 Jun 2025 19:50 UTC
22 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Rethinking the Impact of Advocating Against Dairy
I started eating dairy again (after 15 years of veganism) as part of a moral trade. Then, when the trade ended, I chose to continue eating dairy because of how much flexibility it had given me back. I can eat at the airport. There wasn’t a constant food scarcity program running itself in the back of my mind taking a much bigger toll on my mental health than I had realized since I was a teenager. As much as this usually sounds like an excuse, I honestly could not conclude that it was better for the world for me to go back to that for the amount of suffering it prevents.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 13 Jun 2025 19:35 UTC
9 points
5 ∶ 10
in reply to: Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸’s comment on: Holly_Elmore’s Shortform
This topic is painful for me because I opened my heart to EA as fellow travelers who could share my moral burden. And I feel betrayed by my former community when they let themselves be charmed and intimidated by the AI industry. And then turn all their rhetorical tricks against me not to listen to me (“You’re not being nice and/or smart enough, so it’s actually you who has the problem.”).

I realize now the rationalists were always cowards who wanted the Singularity and to imagine colonizing Galaxies more than to protect people. But I can’t quite accept EA’s failure here. I’m like a spurned lover who can’t believe the love wasn’t real. I thought, at its core, EA really got it about protecting beings.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 13 Jun 2025 19:24 UTC
4 points
6 ∶ 4
in reply to: Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸’s comment on: Holly_Elmore’s Shortform
It should hurt to work with AI companies. You should be looking for excuses not to even if you think there’s an important reason to maintain the relationship. But instead it’s always the other way around because working with corrupt tech elites who “joke” about being evil is ego-syntonic to you. That’s an extremely serious problem.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 13 Jun 2025 19:19 UTC
39 points
17 ∶ 22
on: Holly_Elmore’s Shortform
There’s a serious courage problem in Effective Altruism. I am so profoundly disappointed in this community. It’s not for having a different theory of change—it’s for the fear I see in people’s eyes when considering going against AI companies or losing “legitimacy” by not being associated with them. The squeamishness I see when considering talking about AI danger in a way people can understand, and the fear of losing face within the inner circle. A lot of you value being part of a tech elite more than you do what happens to the world. Full stop. And it does bother me that you have this mutual pact to think of yourselves as good for your corrupt relationships with the industry that’s most likely to get us all killed.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 13 Jun 2025 17:14 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jack_S🔸’s comment on: The myth of AI “warning shots” as cavalry
I agree with all your suggestions and don’t see them in contrast with the post.

I’m not trying to say reality will never be lumpy, but I am claiming that we can’t make use of that without a contingent of the overall AI Safety movement being prepared to take a grind-y strategy. Sometimes it’ll be pure grind and sometimes it’ll have more momentum behind it. But if you have no groundwork laid when something big happens, you can’t just jump in and expect people to interpret it as supporting your account.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 13 Jun 2025 17:04 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Owen Cotton-Barratt’s comment on: The myth of AI “warning shots” as cavalry
Did you feel treated ungently for your warning shots take? Or is this just on the behalf of people who might?

Also can you tell me what you mean by “ontologically ungentle”? It sounds worryingly close to a demand that the writer think all the readers are good. I do want to confront people with the fact they’ve been lazily hoping for violence if that’s in fact what they’ve been doing.

Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸 13 Jun 2025 9:19 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Owen Cotton-Barratt’s comment on: The myth of AI “warning shots” as cavalry
I thought I was giving the strong version. I have never heard an account of a warning shot theory of change that wasn’t “AI will cause a small-scale disaster and then the political will to do something will materialize”. I think the strong version would be my version, educating people first so they can understand small-scale disasters that may occur for what they are. I have never seen or heard this advocated in AI Safety circles before.
And I described how impactful chatGPT was on me, which imo was a warning shot gone right in my case.