orellanin

Karma: 36

orellanin 15 Mar 2023 16:50 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ubuntu’s comment on: Time Article Discussion—“Effective Altruist Leaders Were Repeatedly Warned About Sam Bankman-Fried Years Before FTX Collapsed”

E.g. concerns about the other half of the FTX/Alameda split are labelled as just “internal politics,”

What do you mean by “concerns about the other half of the FTX/Alameda split”?

orellanin 8 Mar 2023 21:24 UTC
9 points
3 ∶ 1
in reply to: titotal’s comment on: Abuse in LessWrong and rationalist communities in Bloomberg News
What do you mean by rejecting someone entirely, and why does it entail not talking to them when you’d find this helpful? Is this about
- punishment through the psychological effects of social isolation?
- punishment through some other effect of social isolation?
- concern about being manipulated?
- a “good guy” talking to a “bad guy” may be helpful, but a “bad guy” talking to another “bad guy” lets them coordinate to do bad things, therefore we apply social pressure to prevent anyone from talking to someone we’ve identified as a “bad guy”?
- some other consideration / model I’m missing?

orellanin 18 Feb 2023 18:36 UTC
0 points
2 ∶ 1
in reply to: There_is_a_problem’s comment on: EA, 30 + 14 Rapes, and My Not-So-Good Experience with EA.

defamation

If someone committed a bunch of money to defend you in a defamation lawsuit, would that help? Do you have a sense for roughly how much money committed would be needed to substantially reduce the risk-to-you of a defamation lawsuit?

orellanin 9 Feb 2023 2:10 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 2
in reply to: NunoSempere’s comment on: [Atlas Fellowship] Why do 100 high-schoolers need $50k each from Open Philanthropy?
This sounds like a great reason to give young adults $50k, but if someone is giving young adults $50k for this reason, I don’t see why they would add a requirement that they be spent on “academic expenses”.

orellanin 7 Feb 2023 19:29 UTC
6 points
3 ∶ 1
in reply to: gated’s comment on: EA, Sexual Harassment, and Abuse

INCLUDING ACCUSING ONE GAY PERSON OF ASSAULTING A FEMALE. WHICH FEMALE SAID HE DIDN’T DO

When the underage female got contacted to confirm this, SHE WAS OUTRAGED BECAUSE THEY NEVER HAD ANY INTERCOURSE AND THE EX OF the ACCUSED GUY USED HER NAME IN A STORY AGAINST HER WILL.

Would any of these females be willing publicly say so?

Also, what was communication in this group house / social group like; when the co-head accused people of sexual assault, is it safe for me to assume that there’s a record of that accusation?

HER BLACKMAIL HAS BEEN RECORDED TOO (can be shared here upon request).

By blackmail, do you mean saying “Get me the lease by Friday at Midnight or I will go to the press, lawyers, and the police with these accusations.” or something else?

(If people aren’t willing to talk about this publicly, but anyone who knows me can confirm or disconfirm any of this, please reach out to me!)

orellanin 7 Feb 2023 19:17 UTC
−3 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: whistleblower10’s comment on: EA, Sexual Harassment, and Abuse
What happens to people on this blacklist?

orellanin 7 Feb 2023 13:37 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Rochelle Shen’s comment on: EA, Sexual Harassment, and Abuse

I did not want to tell the full severity of the story because I genuinely care about the Effective Altruism movement, and though numerous individual actors behaved in a coordinated and awful way, I still see the promise in having a positive conversation about how the movement can change.

Can you be more specific here; were you declining to tell the full severity of the story in order to protect the reputation of the EA movement? I would prefer you didn’t do that (but by the same logic, if you did, I very much appreciate you [EDIT: saying] so!). We can have a discussion about the relative merits of reputation vs integrity (as in https://sideways-view.com/2016/11/14/integrity-for-consequentialists/ ; I don’t endorse all the reasoning in that post) but I don’t really know where to start.

Separately, I would prefer if you share more of the evidence regardless of your reasons against doing so. Please let me know if I can do anything to make you or others more comfortable doing so!

orellanin 5 Feb 2023 4:52 UTC
6 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: ruthgrace’s comment on: EA, Sexual Harassment, and Abuse
This comment is currently at −6 agreement votes. Does anyone want to explain to me why this is so?

orellanin 19 Jan 2023 2:06 UTC
5 points
4 ∶ 0
in reply to: throwaway_account’s comment on: CEA statement on Nick Bostrom’s email
Thanks; what has Avraham done that makes him longtermist? Did he / does he identify as longtermist?

orellanin 15 Jan 2023 18:09 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: throwaway_account’s comment on: CEA statement on Nick Bostrom’s email
I’m not aware of the two separate theft incidents (or forgot about one), can you tell me more about them?

orellanin 5 Oct 2022 5:26 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Samotsvety Nuclear Risk update October 2022
There is internal discord within Samotsvety about the degree to which the magnitude of the difference between our current and former probabilities is indicative of a lack of accuracy. We Samotsvety updated our endline monthly probability of London being hit with a nuclear weapon by ~5x (0.055% vs 0.067 * 0.18 = 0.012%).
This number is before you made the correction, is that right? Can you edit this to highlight the fact that it (aiui) does not apply any more?

orellanin 18 Jun 2022 1:04 UTC
12 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: AppliedDivinityStudies’s comment on: A Critical Review of Open Philanthropy’s Bet On Criminal Justice Reform
I agree that there’s a difference in the social dynamics of being vigilant about mistakes vs being vigilant about intentions. I agree with your point in the sense that worlds in which the community is skeptical of OP’s intentions tend to have worse social dynamics than worlds in which it isn’t.
But you seem to be implying something beyond that; that people should be less skeptical of OP’s intentions given the evidence we see right now, and/or that people should be more hesitant to express that skepticism. Am I understanding you correctly, and what’s your reasoning here?

My intuition is that a norm against expressing skepticism of orgs’ intentions wouldn’t usefully reduce community skepticism, because community members can just see this norm and infer that there’s probably some private skepticism (just like I update when reading your comment and the tone of the rest of the thread). And without open communication, community members’ level of skepticism will be noisier (for example, Nuño starting out much more trusting and deferential than the EA average before he started looking into this).