As a marketer, I think EAs overlook the fact that a narrative will form whether you like it or not (because humans makes sense of things - at least complex things - through narratives/stories), and it’s virutally always better to shape your own narrative than to let one emerge by accident.
It seems like EA has a pretty serious branding issue, and people aren't doing anything because creating your own narrative "feels wrong".
Thanks for the comment Igor! I agree, letting a narrative form is considered bad in the corporate branding/PR space because people love to create stories around something for it to have meaning to them.
I definitely think this is an issue which is why I was flagging it - I haven't seen any mention of these film/tv projects being discussed in EA and they've been in development for over a year. I decided to just put it in the waters given the movie just wrapped filming... maybe people are aware of it but communication from leaders has been light this past few years leaving some of us in the dark. I'd rather people have a heads so they aren't blindsided like with FTX/OpenAI.
How do we know that the portrayals of EA in these films are going to be negative, let alone unfair? I think that suing is premature.
From a Hollywood 'we sell drama as entertainment' lens - in a conflict someone has to be the 'hero' (they are right) the audience roots for and someone as the 'antagonist' (they are wrong) - who do you think that's going to be? To the victor goes the spoils... ultimately Sam 'won' so do you think the representation will be in EA's favor?
We can guess too from the press coverage from that time which was skewed largely pro-sam, anti-ea language, even from non-tech sources (finance, politics, entertainment). From the outside looking in, most people do not understand what EA is and therefore misconstrue our work because it is deliberately simplified in the press (and mixed in with the MIRI/Bay rationality crowd) to "they think terminator will kill us all" - which to the public at large (who, yes, is ignorant about the dangers of technology) but this sounds juvenile/fear-mongering/cultish.
(Which is why improving our communication of the issues to a lay audience is so critical and seems to be undervalued or perhaps bottlenecked by talent/resources).
That, plus a general negative shift following SBF/FTX still lingering on people's minds...
I'm curious as to why you just assume it will be a positive representation of EAs?
How did Sam "win"? The press coverage of him since the FTX collapse has been overwhelmingly negative. The EA movement has been caught up in that as collateral damage, but some works have criticized Sam for "twisting" EA, like the podcast Spellcaster.
...why you just assume it will be a positive representation of EAs?
No, I'm not making any assumptions about the movies being released.
I'm starting to realize we may be talking past each other because of different vantage points in the movement. Sam 'won' the openai board coup by getting reinstated as CEO. He also 'won' in the sense of positive optics given how much silicon valley rushed to defend/support him during that situation. Your comment suggests we're reading different press coverage, but specifically during that event, the press for Sam was positive and for the EA movement negative. Even now, I wouldn't say press for him has been 'overwhelmingly' negative. Yes, the tides are shifting toward people being weary of AI, but imo that shift isn't happening fast enough. There is some positive press/support for ai safety work, but I don't feel like it's enough by comparison.
Are you two talking about different Sams?
Just to clarify, by "Sam" do you mean Altman or Bankman-Fried?
Yes, sorry that's confusing i'll switch to last names; Luca's artificial is with altman.
EA, back in the day, refused to draw a boundary with the rationality movement in the Bay area
That's a hell of a framing. EA is an outgrowth of the rationality movement which is centered in the bay area. EA wouldn't be EA without rationality.
I understand EA developed from/was influenced by several groups, but at some point it needed to articulate it's own identity and it seems people still tie us to the rationality movement. This is not a slam against them at all, but correct me if i'm wrong, we have different purpose/aims than that movement, right? So it might be beneficial to clarify the difference between the two groups.
I would not frame the relationship that way, no. I would say EA is built on top of rationality. Rationality talks about how to understand the world and achieve your goals, it defines itself as systematized winning. But it is agnostic as to what those goals are. EA takes those rationality skills, and fills in some particular goals. I think EA's mistake was in creating a pipeline that often brought people into the movement without fully inculcating the skills and norms of rationality.
meta-commentary for anyone in community building, on why people may opt out of engaging...
I'm not trying to stoke flames here with my post, and one reason I don't engage much on the forum anymore is the strength of pushback I get for asking what I considered to be an earnest simple commentary/question.
A common vibe is that the movement seems to have a strong defense to any thing remotely perceived as a criticism. Per a below comment, grandstanding on not making an assumption about the movies is implying that I'm wrong to be worried... but I've been watching the development of these projects since they were announced back in 2023 (along with other AI projects out of personal interest in film/entertainment).
I'm not brashly lashing out at these films after having just learned about them five minutes ago.... I've been waiting for it to be brought up and I haven't seen any comment across various channels (forums, twitter, blogs etc) so I figured I'd raise a hand and ask "is anyone else worried about this?"
For all the talk about learning from FTX and foresight, it seems odd that this hasn't been mentioned. If I'm wrong to ask those questions, let me know and I'll happily find an exit. After 10 years in this movement, every time I try to earnestly engage (in the only way I can right now, via the forum) I'm immediately met with what feels like premature suspicion/defensive rejection.
I'm all for debating ideas, but I guess some things should only be brought up in person conversations or not at all. For an autistic person it's very hard to discern how to engage with EA because these social rules/norms of interacting are non-obvious.
I'm sorry if I came off too harsh with my comment, if you were referring to me. How could I have phrased my points better?
I appreciate that and it's not just you, it's the immediate downvoting and pushback in the comments - all of which give the subtext of "you're wrong to think this way" without any effort to engage/ask questions. If you're too busy to engage fully, then maybe don't comment/vote.
I thought your referencing scientology was a tad ironic; the amount of behaviors EAs have done over the last 10 years are what have created the cult narrative around us. It's the immediate defensiveness against your own kind, someone who identifies with the movement, instead of working to see their perspective or explain your perspective in a kinder tone that's problematic.
edited: haven't published to the forum in a long time but I'm not surprised to get a little pushback, for some reason my writing infuriates people (?) ; adding to clarify ... this is not an attack, I come in peace, and was simply curious if this had been brought up elsewhere. Maybe I missed a memo, being out here on the fringes of the movement, but as someone with a background in psychology/branding and passion for film, I thought it was an interesting point.
Resisting the urge to delete this, didn't know this was not the type of thing to bring up on the forum, my mistake. I'm hesitant to actually edit the writing because that feels intellectually dishonest. I unbolded things to remove any sense of 'aggression' in the tone. My tone in writing this is 100% calm, earnest and like "hey I noticed these things and am concerned, what do you think?"
I know the movement may feel enticed to forgo optics, but ironically it seems like now would be the better time to care about them. For example, the forthcoming "The Altruists" at Netflix on FTX and now Luca Guadagnino's "Artificial" just wrapped (which is very specifically focused on the 5-day board firing of Sam Altman and will obviously cover the EA/AI safety movements).
Knowing how antagonistic OpenAI is being toward any kind of policy work limiting AI companies development, and the only groups working against those efforts are EA and AIS.... having widespread negative representation in entertainment may hinder all future work of these movements.
Luca's hot right now - he just came off the success of Zendaya's Challengers and Oscar contender Queer, the movie's got a stocked cast, and he's angling it as a comedy which is the best way to reach people on subjects that might go over their heads (with all the tech and philosophical jargon). While specific casting is being kept secret, it's not hard to think EAs will feature in this film - especially the board members involved.
We can probably guess what angle they're going to take - EAs are a bunch of eccentric techies worrying about some doomsday god - (because EA, back in the day, refused to draw a boundary with the rationality movement in the Bay area - it is now often lumped in together with Eliezer and MIRI). I mean you tell me - who do you think Jason Schwartzman is playing based off these on-set images?
This won't just be a blip of a movie, it's going to be milked to reach wide audiences. Why do I think that? New feature on Thrive Capital founder Joshua Kushner just dropped - he's behind all the tech unicorns, Stripe, Airbnb and yes, OpenAI. The piece is long and fascinating backstory about his family, but the interview with Joshua centers around the events of the OpenAI firing...(it's brief so just control find for 'effective altruist' on the page).
It suggests Kushner was behind that rapid media campaign that turned the public sentiment, in the tech space and the public at large, against EAs instantaneously (remember all the "turbulent priests" and "Altman is so amazing" articles?). These people have billions and cross-industry connections that go back to their days at ivy leagues (Kushner was at Harvard same time as Mark Zuckerberg...oh and so was Simon Rich, the writer of the Artificial movie).
Why bring this up? Giving up on public relations is not the attitude that's needed here. If we care about the work more than anything, then we have to care about how the public perceives this movement. That doesn't mean micromanaging through polished PR pieces... but it does mean putting a human face on the movement (which CEA and Zach Robinson have already been doing fantastically well over the last year) and effectively communicating what EA is (and what it isn't - by drawing a clear distinction between it and auxiliary movements). Which is why joining with the AI Safety Movement right now would water down the messaging of this movement's purpose, which is still not crystal clear to the public at large.
Second note, If Kushner could push out an overnight media assault campaign (with the help of even more insider tech force), then this Artificial movie, I'm speculating, is meant to serve as the final nail in the coffin. The best way to burnish the EA movement (not just with Silicon Valley, but across a global audience of philanthropic donors, students and political leaders), is not to destroy it, but just make it enough of a joke in everyone's eyes, that no one takes it seriously ever again. Given this possibility, has anyone who might be featured in these works considered pursuing a Life Rights lawsuit or even forming a Class Action to delay or block the release of these films?
They're hiding the cast list of these projects to prevent any legal drama around defamation or libel, until after its released. In the entertainment world, even bad press helps fuel the flames behind a film and gets it more attention. By then the damage is done, the 'false' or 'misleading' narrative is out in the world, and you're left scrambling to pick up the pieces.
Both projects come out in 2026. All the momentum EA has been rebuilding since FTX may hit a wall. This seems like a worthwhile effort to at least investigate options, maybe even get support from Open Phil or CEA. From a social psychology perspective, showing the world we don't care about our image is exactly the attitude they expect from eccentric outsiders - the 'righteous contrarianism' that often makes people turned off by silicon valley and academics. If the work is what matters most, then we're not just fighting for people's perception of ourselves, we're also protecting and re-emphasizing the importance of these causes.
Threatening and banning critical pieces isn't what good people do; it's what groups like the Church of Scientology do. The goal isn't to censor criticism, but to create a positive counter-narrative. Or more realistically, a populist narrative with "Big Tech" as the antagonist.
I think the tone of my piece may have portrayed a stronger sentiment than I intended - I'll consider editing to improve that, but in no way am I saying we should ban the films outright (although stalling long enough to find out what the representation will be could be valuable).
Given we don't know the full intent of the films, the portrayal could be not just critical but malicious (even if merely farcical) - and I'm simply pointing that out now, well before the release date. So that we, across the movement, can be prepared for that negative perception hit and as you say begin working on "creating a positive counter-narrative" ...whatever that may be.
I agree outright shutting down critiques is problematic 'cult-like' behavior - but EA was already doing that for years prior to FTX which contributed to people's views that this movement was a cult. The problem I see, having done that prematurely (because of defensiveness, contrarianism, edge-lording), is that there is now a legitimate reason to deflect a potential new wave of negative press and the leaders have 'evolved' to saying "optics don't matter!" The evolution of thinking amongst higher brass is out of sync with the reality of our situation.
What would "stalling the film" look like? And how would you avoid drawing more attention to the film by doing so?
I'm not saying stalling the films is something the movement should do at all, merely an option albeit risky... I was sharing that as an option for people who may be featured (and may not be aware they have life rights). The film will get attention no matter what. The flipside is, the film comes out and what, EA says or does nothing? If that's what everyone thinks is best so be it, I really wasn't trying to prescribe a course of action, merely suggesting some options (because don't you hate it when people point out a (potential) problem and not provide some ideas for a solution?)