Vaipan

Karma: 321

Vaipan Jan 30, 2024, 12:44 PM
2 points
5 ∶ 5
in reply to: Lukas_Gloor’s comment on: EV investigation into Owen and Community Health
The post did a great job at describing exactly what is reproached to Owen. I do not see anyone in the comment claiming that he is more than what is described in the post, and in general, I do not see anything pointing at overaction from anybody.
Citing Epstein looks like a strawman and does not make my point less salient: that some members jumping to defend Owen is an insult to the testimony of these women as if Owen’s good behaviour removed his bad behaviours, and contradictory to what has been courageously empathized in this post, i.e. that EAs knowing each other and defending each other encourage secrecy and overlooking potential serious misconducts.
I would even add that assuming that the community will conflate Owen and Epstein’s case is patronizing and far-fetched; I think that people are able to make the distinction between a sex offender who got jail time and Owen.

Vaipan Jan 30, 2024, 10:02 AM
86 points
49 ∶ 42
on: EV investigation into Owen and Community Health
I do not know Owen. I am however a bit worried to see two people in these comments advocating for Owen while this affair does not look good and the facts speak for themselves; there is a certain irony to see these two people coming to defend Owen while the community health head, Julia, admits to a certain level of bias when handling this affair since he was her friend. It seems that EA people do not learn from the mistakes that are courageously being owned up here. This posts talks about Owen misbehaving: it does not talk about Owen’s good deeds. So this kind of comment defeats the point of this post.
Can you put yourself two seconds in the shoes of these women who received unwanted and pressing attention from Owen, with all the power dynamics that are involved, reading comments on how Owen is responsible and a great addition to the community, even after women repeatedly complained about him? What I read is ‘He treated me well, so don’t be so quick to dismiss him’ and ‘I’ve dealt with worse cases, so I can assure you this one is not that bad’.
Do you really think that such attitudes encourage women to speak up? Do you really think that this is the place to do this?
Edit: I want to thank those who have written this post and highlight the courage that it has taken. I know that I am flagging up the things that are not okay, e.g these comments, but I am very happy that this does not stay within community building circles and gets shared. Yeay for transparency, yay for honesty, yay for highlighting what is wrong if we want to do better. I know of instances where such bad press has been kept within closed doors, and I’m glad this one has not. So, thanks. I yell a lot (I wish I did not have to, of course) but I also want to be grateful.

Vaipan Jan 18, 2024, 9:22 AM
−2 points
1 ∶ 5
in reply to: det’s comment on: Vaipan’s Quick takes
- Yes, this is exactly the issue. Talent isn’t being picked on. If we are going to do good for future beings we need to take into account as many perspectives as we can instead of staying within the realm of our own male-centered western narratives.
- Many posts exist on the EA forum about diversity that show how bad EA can be for women. The Times article on sexual assault is just the tip of the iceberg.
- Being weird is fine (eg thinking about far-fetched ideas about the future). Calling out sexism is not incompatible with that.
- Thing is doing it just to ‘reduce sexism and improve women wellbeing in EA’ is clearly not a worthy cause for many here. So I guess I have to use arguments that make sense for others. And this is a real issue though—EA ideas and thus funding in the right direction could be so much more widespread and accepted without all these PR scandals.
The hostile tone has to do with being tired of having to advocate for the simpliest things. There are always the same comments on all the posts denouncing diversity issues: ‘it is not a priority’ ‘there is no issue’ ‘stop being a leftist’.
People who downvote have probably not even read the forum post on abuse in the AI spheres, while it shows how ingrained sexism is in this Silicon Valley culture. They don’t care, because it doesn’t concern them. Wanting the wellbeing of animals is all good and fine, but when it comes to women and people of colour, it becomes political, so yeah, there is denial. Animals can’t speak—they can’t upset them. Women and people of colour speak and ask for more justice—and that’s where it becomes political, because then these men have to share power and acknowledge harm. So I don’t think denial is a bad word.
When your life is at stake—when women are being harassed, raped, denied the right to dispose of their own bodies and lives, the tone can get hostile. I have something to lose here; for those who downvote me, it’s just only another intellectual topic. I won’t apologize for that.

Vaipan Jan 18, 2024, 9:11 AM
−6 points
0 ∶ 3
in reply to: det’s comment on: Vaipan’s Quick takes
It is certainly my own fault for not immediately noting down when this happened; might have been an EA-adjacent media.
As for the reproductive rights I disagree. They provoke heated discussion specifically because this is highly important to those it directly concerns, women, because they are the one losing control over their lives if these rights are suppressed. If men were the ones directly affecting, e.g. losing control over their own body and lives, this would be much more mentioned here, but since EA is 70% male, it is not. Raising questions about foetus sentience is fine, but writing these posts without even a mention of reproductive rights hints towards using this thinking to legitimate what is currently happening with RoeVsWade.
It’s a classic EA thing: EAs that are not concerned at all by the topic (reproductive rights, poverty) talk about what to do on a topic without taking into account the perspective of those who actually deal with these issues. And here it was exactly that: a man who had the luxury to raise these questions because his life and body will never suffer of potential consequences of this post.
The results of this post is that talent, i.e. many women, is pushed away, because who wants to stay in a movement that doesn’t care at all about your opinions for things that concern you directly?

Vaipan Jan 18, 2024, 9:03 AM
0 points
0 ∶ 3
in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Vaipan’s Quick takes
Well that is a step among others, and asking is better than not asking and acting as if there was no issues at all. I didn’t specify the epistemic value I would attribute to these testimonies, so this is a sneaky comment.
But I was expecting you—never fail to comment negatively on posts that dare bringing up these issues. For someone who clearly says in a comment under a post about political opinions on EA that we need more right-wingers in EA and who also says that EA shouldn’t be carrying leftist discourses to avoid being discredited, you sure are consistent in your fights. Nothing much about the content of the post though so I guess you didn’t have much to say aside from inferring the epistemic value I’d put on anecdotal data.
For those who would worry about the ‘personal aspect’ of this comment, understand that when you see a pattern of someone constantly advocating against a topic every time it’s brought up on the topic, it sounds legitimate to me to understand why such a thing happen. There is motivated reasoning here—I don’t expect objectivity on this topic from someone who so openly shows their political camp. Since Larks isn’t attacking anything content-wise about the post other than some assumption on methodology, I do feel justified to note Lark’s lack of objectivity.
That is all I needed to say, there is no need to comment further on my side to avoid escalation. I just want people to have a clear picture of who is commenting here and the motivation behind.

Vaipan Jan 17, 2024, 9:33 AM
3 points
16 ∶ 26
on: Vaipan’s Quick takes
The Economist describes EAs as ‘Oxford University philosophers who came up with the name in 2011, New York hedge-fund analysts and Silicon Valley tech bros’; while many might think it’s exaggerated, I think that’s a relevant description of the image that is given by the loudest voices in our community, and if we want to be taken seriously in terms of policy recommendations, we should aim to change this actively.
Disastrous experiences underwent by women in AI safety (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LqjG4bAxHfmHC5iut/why-i-spoke-to-time-magazine-and-my-experience-as-a-female), hosts and guests of the 80k podcast laughing at the ‘wokeness’ of this or that when civil rights/feminism are being brought in a conversation, constant refusal to admit that EA has an issue of sexism and homogenous cultural norms (see all posts related to diversity + https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/W8S3EuYDWYHQxm77u/racial-demographics-at-longtermist-organizations), posts on LessWrong talking about foetus’s sentience without mentioning ONCE reproductive rights, are, I think, strong elements of why we are seen as such a elitist, un-diverse and culturally closed community.
The frequency at which these things happen is enough to know that these issues are not a one-time, marginal kind of things.
We can do better. We should do better. And if we don’t tackle these issues seriously and keep being in denial, we will be unable to pass AI safety regulations or be taken seriously when we talk about existential risks, because people will brush it off as a ‘tech bro thing’. And I must say, I had the same reaction before reading on the topic, because the offputting aspect of the culture around GCR is so strong that when you do care about that stuff, it’s hard to not be repelled forever. And the external world cares about that stuff, fortunately for me, and unfortunately for some of you!
If you are truly worried about GCR, consider these issues and try to talk about it with community members. We cannot just stay among ourselves and pat ourselves on the back for creating efficient charities. Also talk to me if you recognize this cultural offputtingness I’m talking about: I’m preparing a series of posts on diversity and AI and need to back it up as much as I can, despite the youth of the field.
Downvoting this quicktake won’t make these issues go away; if we are real truth-seekers, we cannot stay in denial.

Vaipan Jan 16, 2024, 3:01 PM
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: A critique of the EA community’s approach to influencing non-EA actors
I agree. Involving other actors forces us to examine deeply EA’s weirdness and unappealing behaviours, and brings a ton of experience, network, and amplifies impact.
This is something that I have been seriously thinking about when organizing big projects, especially when it comes to determine the goals of a conference and the actors that we choose to invite. Specifically in a theme such as AI safety, where safety concerns should be propelled and advertised in policy among other non-EA policy actors.

Vaipan Jan 8, 2024, 11:21 PM
9 points
4 ∶ 2
on: Zach Robinson will be CEA’s next CEO
While its great that strong voices in this community such as Ord, MacAskill and others have come guaranteeing Zach’s great qualities, I would like to read about Zach’s concrete work, failures and achievements. This community lives to defer, and this seems like a great representative example of that, unfortunately I’m not sure how relevant it is here.

All I know about him is that he worked on global health and has tight relationships with Anthropic, thus AI safety. It’s great for sure, I love the apparent ability to care about many causes at the same time. But what did he do? What is his path? How did he overcome challenges? What does he fail at? What embodies the most his greatness work-wise, which projects? And more importantly: for what impact?

Vaipan Dec 27, 2023, 10:43 AM
12 points
4 ∶ 4
in reply to: Ben Millwood🔸’s comment on: The privilege of native English speakers in reaching high-status, influential positions in EA
But a core thing that you don’t mention (maybe because you are a native speaker, and you have to not be one to realize that, not being mean here but simply stating what I think is a fact), is that jargon adds to the effort.
Not only you have to speak a flawless English and not mull over potential mistakes that potentially make you look foolish in the eyes of your interlocutor and reduce the credibility of your discourse, but you also have to use the right jargon. Add saying something meaningful in top of it: you have to pay attention to how you say things (language + jargon) and what you say.
Try handling the feeling of inferiority that inevitably arises when your interlocutor speaks a perfect English and can focus 100% on the content only on what they say while you have to handle the language + the jargon + the meaning behind and that gives you a pretty good mix to feel like a fraud, especially when you disagree with someone. Try a sensitive topic, such as prioritizing x-risk over global health, and add all that mental load. Good luck!

Vaipan Dec 13, 2023, 4:54 PM
−6 points
0 ∶ 9
in reply to: AlyssaVance’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
I should have specified: the fellowships I’m talking about are in London/Switzerland. Still expensive but nothing that justifies paying people with barely a bachelor degree and no work experience

Vaipan Dec 13, 2023, 4:33 PM
−15 points
2 ∶ 6
in reply to: Kirsten’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
Thanks for saying this. Sadly there is a lot of deference when it comes to AI safety and its questionable researchers, and while EA claims it loves criticism, I didn’t meet much love when raising my concerns.
In a group that is composed at 80% by rich white males who have a STEM background where AI safety allows them to get the recognition of their technical skills AND a huge pay, raising such concerns never goes well.
I’m actually preparing a series of post on the lack of diversity within AI and cultural biases will be part of it—how your critical thinking shuts down when it comes to doing work you love, and how evidence that existential risks should be prioritized falls apart under hard criticism (see David Thorsad’s criticism of Bostrom’s famous number 10^16). I expect much pushback and blind denial, as I can see with the comments under my own post that are pretty much just saying ‘AI researchers deserve to be paid well because ML is hard’. I have news: it’s far from unique to AI safety, sadly.

Vaipan Dec 13, 2023, 4:28 PM
−20 points
2 ∶ 19
in reply to: JamesMiller’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
3000 per month for beginners in an AI fellowship is way, way too much.
We need to stop considering machine learning engineers as la crème de la crème and justify these exorbitant salaries based on that assumption. The tractability and impact measuring of the work of these people is highly questionable (the causality series written by RP rates existential risk research at 2 on a scale from 1 to 5, tractability-wise).

Vaipan Dec 13, 2023, 4:27 PM
−6 points
1 ∶ 3
in reply to: harfe’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
We’re talking fellows, so people with very little experience and no certainty of impact at all. You’re comparing this with fully-fledged Anthropic researchers, which doesn’t make sense at all.
And I could talk how these researchers at Anthropic are probably paid way too much for the tractability of their work, but I guess this asks for another post.

Vaipan Dec 13, 2023, 1:27 PM
−2 points
2 ∶ 4
in reply to: Wei Dai’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
That’s one example, it is only one though; many other fellowships are very well-paid, up to 3000 euros per month, I’m thinking SERI/CHERI/CERI

Vaipan Dec 13, 2023, 9:59 AM
4 points
2 ∶ 6
in reply to: ElliotJDavies’s comment on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims
I don’t understand why people downvote you, if not out of bad faith. Cause they give no evidence that money is used well. And so far you are the only one pointing this out. So unless these people work in these communities and feel personally attacked, there’s no point downvoting the truth.
If anyone can provide evidence that this hot tub money was used for good purposes I’d love to see it. Otherwise don’t be dishonest and don’t downvote.

Vaipan Dec 13, 2023, 9:42 AM
24 points
24 ∶ 22
on: Nonlinear’s Evidence: Debunking False and Misleading Claims

I won’t comment on who is right and who is wrong. That’s not what is relevant here in my opinion anyway. Rather the carelessness with which the money is used and the attitude behind, which gives ground to EA critics, and how could they be not wrong? If we trust the picture given by these people—luxurious salaries, luxurious retreats, carelessness about the money and romantic involvement with each other that leads to drama--, I’m ashamed to be an EA. The fact that no one comments on this worries me tremendously.
This situation disappoints me deeply, and it prompts reflection on what is EA in such circles, and what should be EA. It’s disheartening to witness the allocation of funds in a manner that seemingly deviates from the core values of this movement.
My concern extends beyond individual actions; what truly troubles me is the apparent lack of stewardship over financial resources. The discretion given to Chloé regarding her compensation, supposedly from funds “raised,” raises questions about accountability. Additionally, extravagant expenditures, like Ben’s $5000 for evaluating job applicants, appear starkly incongruent with the principles of effectiveness and impact that EA advocates.
This isn’t about adopting a holier-than-thou stance, but rather about upholding the fundamental tenets of EA. It’s disconcerting to see substantial financial resources being directed towards luxurious AI retreats, seemingly deviating from the ethos I initially embraced within EA.
Many within EA seek to make a meaningful difference through diligent, often challenging work—researching, striving for jobs aligned with their values, living modestly to contribute more to causes. EA, while predominantly associated with a specific demographic of rich white men in STEM (statistically that is what EA is, as the movement is around 90% white and 69% male) should not dismiss the struggles of those outside this stereotype.
The recent focus on Nonlinear feels like a departure from the altruistic essence of EA. It stands in stark contrast to the ethos set forth by McAskill’s example of allocating the majority of his income to charitable causes.
My concerns regarding Nonlinear’s operations in the Bahamas were met with a response emphasizing increased productivity without substantiated evidence. This lack of quantitative validation adds to the disillusionment surrounding the situation.
Something needs to be done. Many valuable people are exiting the movement because of shady allocations of funds—isn’t that funny to read these posts about which charity is the best, penny-close wise, while la crème de la crème does luxurious AI safety retreats? This isn’t a ‘one-time type of thing’, this is well-known. And yet nothing is done. I will sound Cromwellian, but we need morals and reality-check for people in power. Nothing surprising, but it needs to be repeated, again.
Oh, and I feel that this should be my signature: if you dislike my comment, why is that? So far I’ve received one comment nitpicking about how one AI safety retreat they know of is not luxury; aside from that, does anyone has anything to say about how poorly this reflects on EA? How a whole movement pays the PR price of the luxury lifestyle of a few? How this is plainly in contradiction with principles of effective altruism and nobody says anything because I assume the funder and the causes are hyped? I have a lot of respect for someone who funds something like Charity Entrepreneurship, it’s definitely one of the best things EA did. However the rest doesn’t speak in their favor and doesn’t justify this debauchery.

Vaipan Dec 11, 2023, 2:52 PM
3 points
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: David_Moss’s comment on: Is there an online group that gathers people interested in the intersection of EA and left-wing or progressive thought?
Thanks David, I was thinking about this survey. I guess my point still stands—a leftist EA in Scandinavia doesn’t mean the same thing as a leftist in the US, and my guess is that the majority of what these EAs call ‘left’ would be seen as center-left or even moderate right-wing in other countries (such as France or Sweden).

Vaipan Dec 11, 2023, 2:02 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 1
on: Is there an online group that gathers people interested in the intersection of EA and left-wing or progressive thought?
I guess there’s a difference between EAs calling themselves ‘center-left’ and that apparently make 80% of EA according to Rethink Priorities surveys, which are probably EAs broadly open to ideas such as passively giving rights to minorities and encouraging a market economy that does a bit of redistribution,
and those who call actively themselves ’leftists, who are in favor of structural change, breaking down patriarchy and are feminists, loath wealth-hoarding and tend to be extremely skeptical towards extreme rationalists who have no qualms discussing abortion without mentioning women’s rights.
I reckon the second kind will be much harder to find, but they exist!

Vaipan Dec 4, 2023, 12:59 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: How can EA bring about the social change it desires? An analysis of historical social change portfolios
Interesting! Just to clarify for others, SMS means: A social movement is a loosely organized effort by a large group of people to achieve a particular goal, typically a social or political one.
Which isn’t what EA does, as it is much more field-building oriented. However SMS seems the most efficient way of obtaining positive results; do you suggest that we do the same/try to think more broadly about public advocacy? Thinking about AI safety? Holy Elmore’s piece on AI safety advocacy supports your conclusion.
I also wonder how much this analysis is applicable for EA since EA is highly peculiar; it doesn’t obey the same rules that usually apply to communities IMO. So the ND seems especially relevant for EA since it’s basically working through a network of white, STEM, rich men (more than 60% of the community as per the last RP survey) who want to make a change. As long as EA doesn’t openly make efforts to become more diverse and more accessible, will it be efficient to go for SMS?
I might have misunderstood completely your post though!

Vaipan Nov 28, 2023, 3:24 PM
0 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Vaipan’s Quick takes
The board did great, I’m very happy we had Tasha and Helen on board to make AI safety concerns prevail.
What I’ve been saying from the start is that this opinion isn’t what I’ve seen on Twitter threads within the EA/rationalist community (I don’t give credits to Tweets but I can’t deny the role they play in AI safety cultural framework), or even on the EA forum, reddit, etc. Quite the opposite, actually: people advocating for Altman’s return and heavily criticizing the board for their decision (I don’t agree with the shadiness that surrounds the board’s decision, but I nevertheless think it’s a good decision).