I helped re-start the UBC EA club in 2022. I’m interested in global health and development and animal welfare.
Lauren Maria
Link-post for Caroline Ellison’s Guilty Plea
Hi Dave,
Thanks for taking the time to write this. I had an almost identical experience at my university. I helped re-start the club, with every intention to lead the club, but I am no longer associated with it because of the lack of willingness from others to engage with AI safety criticisms or to challenge their own beliefs regarding AI safety/Existential risk.
I also felt that those in our group who prioritized AI safety had an advantage as far as getting recognition from more senior members of the city group, ability to form connections with other EAs in the club, and to get funding from EA orgs. I was quite certain I could get funding from the CEA too, as long as I lied and said I prioritized AI safety/Existential risk, but I wasn’t willing to do that. I also felt the money given to other organizers in the club was not necessary and did not have any positive outcomes other than for that individual.
I am now basically fully estranged from the club (which sucks, because I actually enjoyed the company of everyone) because I do not feel like my values, and the values I originally became interested in EA for (such as epistemic humility) exist in the space I was in.
I did manage to have a few conversations with people in the club about AI safety that were somewhat productive, and I am grateful for those people (one senior EA community member who works in AI safety in particular). But despite this, our club basically felt like an AI safety club. Almost every student involved (at least the consistent ones, and the president) were AI safety focused. In addition, they were mainly interested in starting AI safety reading groups and most conversations led to AI safety (other than a philosophy group that my partner and I started, but eventually stopped running).
I struggle with seeing polls like this as being a valid source of information that change my beliefs because we have no way of knowing who is actually voting and whether or not they are trolls.
- 23 Feb 2023 9:09 UTC; 27 points) 's comment on A statement and an apology by (
The NY Times Interviewed SBF on Sunday
This statement is incredibly out of touch Eliezer. If CEO #1 and CEO #2 are in a romantic relationship, there is a clear conflict of interest here, especially when not disclosed to the public. In agreement with Anonymous, I also strongly oppose the language you’re using. I also agree with their comments regarding romantic relationships in the workplace. My general stance is 0 tolerance for workplace romance because it’s messy and there are far too many power dynamics at play.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I think it’s good to have a diversity of views and that the forum is better for it. I think your view is empowering, but one thing I want to say is that I don’t think we should describe this as “shyness”. The point is that when there are power-dynamics at play, such as the one described, people are less likely to say how they feel since a lot may be on the line, such as their livelihood. This isn’t just general shyness, because the same person may feel confident to say how they feel in other settings where the same power dynamics don’t exist.
Caroline Ellison literally says this in a blog post:
“If you abstract away the financial details there’s also a question of like, what your utility function is. Is it infinitely good to do double-or-nothing coin flips forever? Well, sort of, because your upside is unbounded and your downside is bounded at your entire net worth. But most people don’t do this, because their utility is more like a function of their log wealth or something and they really don’t want to lose all of their money. (Of course those people are lame and not EAs; this blog endorses double-or-nothing coin flips and high leverage.)”So no, I don’t think anyone can deny this.
I am also a woman in EA, and do not feel “healed” by this post. That comment really rubbed me the wrong way, and I’m confused why the OP assumed to speak for many women in EA.
I also wish the empathy that is evident in that comment was directed towards the person on the receiving end of his behaviour rather than him.
Thanks for sharing this, especially since you expressed concerned about speaking publicly.
I have expressed similar concerns within my local EA group because I feel like there is no transparency regarding the CEA, how their money is spent, and the cost-effectiveness of EAG. I was typically met with the reply that EAG was justified because of the networking opportunities and that it being a lavish event was only an “optics” issue. This was especially strange to me since I was new to EA, and it didn’t seem to align with what I imagined the community to be (specifically the lack of rigour in how they were deciding to spend money on such an event, or other things they spend money on such as university groups going on retreats). Thanks for making me feel validated in these concerns.
Yes, that’s exactly how I feel too. It seems like he doesn’t grasp the magnitude of this, and thinks he can come back from it. The jokes just make it seem like he doesn’t have compassion for the number of people who were effected by this. I was disappointed, but I guess I shouldn’t have been expecting much.
I agree that “exiled from community” is strong language, but “slow down and listen deeply before we judge” doesn’t make any sense if you consider how many people lost money, careers, funding, etc from his poor decisions, which he is showing almost no remorse for. Taking naps and playing video games? That must be nice when people are genuinely in a bind because their projects were being funded by the FTX Future Fund.
As someone new to EA myself, hearing about EAG conferences left me feeling uneasy and I didn’t even know they vetted people this way. I have since been convinced by fellow EA colleagues and friends that it is beneficial due to networking possibilities. Now learning about this is once again making me feel uneasy.
I understand for conferences there are specific requirements one must meet to attend (in academia for example) but I don’t see any transparency here regarding their decision making process (which seems like a big problem).
In summary:
1) This is going to make many people feel alienated from the EA community (which might counter the benefits of networking and community building that seems to rationalize even having these conferences in the first place)
2) At this point, I don’t see a clear method for determining who should be allowed to attend these conferences (would love to hear and discuss these methods if they actually exist somewhere)
This seems right to me.
I prefer the old font but that isn’t a big deal imo. One thing I really dislike is how when there are new comments on posts I have read, it doesn’t highlight the little number with a blue box anymore, it just boldens the number. I’m curious what the thought process there was because it just makes it more difficult to notice when there are new comments.
Hi, thank you for sharing your experiences. Can you please share who the perpetrator is? If you don’t want to post online, would it be possible to DM it? Based off of what you shared here, it is important for other women in EA to not be around this person.
Thanks for posting this, Dean. Just commenting because it aligns really well with everything I am feeling too.
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining.
Hi Keerthana
Thank you for sharing your experiences here. I know it isn’t easy to talk about. I would encourage people in the comments to reflect on how they approach people who are opening up about difficult experiences like this. We should want people to feel comfortable voicing these concerns, not argue when the person explicitly said this is not an argument, just my own experience. Invalidating someone is a bad look for the community and will make it less likely for others to voice similar concerns which could lead to serious issues.
To clarify, I felt uneasy because I believed that attending an expensive event (which would cost myself over $3000 to attend coming from Canada) was hard to justify when I could donate that money instead. I had just read “Doing Good Better” and thought the idea that the CEA would spend money to host such an event, as well as even fund college students to attend, was counter to everything I had just read. It seemed obvious that, based on EA principles, the better idea would be to donate all of the money spent hosting that event. I believe, at minimum, this is an optics issue. As I said, I have since been somewhat convinced that EAG can be useful so people who may have never met, can share ideas and collaborate to “make the world a better place”. I’m still not fully convinced of this though.
With that said, it makes almost no sense to me, if that was their goal, why someone like you would not have been accepted to attend. From what you said above, you embody everything that EA should represent (in my view)- your commitment to animal welfare and advocacy, and to maximizing your own wealth for the good, is commendable and should be celebrated.
When this post was first shared among the EA community I am part of, I assumed you were rejected as a speaker at EAG. To learn that you were rejected as a participant, is incredibly baffling, when I know first hand of someone being accepted after only learning about EA a month prior.
From the little I understand, they seem to accept attendees who are fit two categories (but I’m happy to get corrected on this if someone with more knowledge can clarify):
1) Young, ambitious college students
2) Mentors who can work with these college students
I can tell you are very busy Constance, but I would like to invite you to speak to the EA group I help run at the University of British Columbia (over zoom of course). Please let me know if you are interested and have the time.
- 25 Sep 2022 3:19 UTC; 4 points) 's comment on Open EA Global by (
Pointing out the %70 male number seems very relevant since issues like this may contribute to that number and will likely push other women (such as myself) away from the movement.
While I haven’t experienced men in EA being dismissive of my ideas (though that’s only my personal experience in a very small EA community) I have found that the people I have met in EA are much more open to talking about sex and sexual experiences than I am comfortable with in a professional environment. I have personally had a colleague in EA ask me to go to a sex party to try BDSM sex toys. This was very strange for me. I have worked as a teacher, as a health care professional, and have spent a lot of time in academic settings, and I have never had an experience like that elsewhere. I also felt that it was being asked because they were sussing out whether or not I was part of the “cool crowd” who was open about my sex life and willing to be experimental.
I found this especially strange because there seem to be a lot of norms around conversation in EA (the same person who asked me to go to that party has strong feelings about up-keeping these norms) but they for some reason don’t have norms around speaking about sexual relationships, which is taboo in every other professional setting I have been a part of. I think having stronger “norms” or whatever you want to call it, or making discussions like this more taboo in EA, would be a good start. This will make it less likely that people in EA will feel comfortable doing the things discussed in this article.