How much of a post are you comfortable for AI to write?
I'm pretty comfortable with AI taking rough ideas / bullet points and turning them into paragraphs, from which the author can then edit and refine.
I consider myself a good writer, in the sense that I can express my thoughts clearly, but I find that's different from being able write them down if I have a mental block.
Some people are proficient at dashing down their thoughts without resistance to getting started. I'm not one of those people and I'm sure there are many like me.
Thanks for putting some numbers to this, its really useful. I bought a couple of 3M full face respirators (3M 6800) second-hand a couple of years ago for the same reasons you cite. I think I might also buy some 3M half-face mask for my other family members like you recommend.
Great minds think alike! That's a great list of resources you've made. We should definitely look at ways to combine our efforts. I'll send you and Shrestha an email now.
In the dis-spirit of this article I'm going to take the opposite tack and I'm going to explore nagging doubts that I have about this line of argument.
To be honest, I'm starting to get more and more sceptical/annoyed about this behaviour (for want of a better word) in the effective altruism community. I'm certainly not the first to voice these concerns, with both Matthew Yglesias and Scott Alexander noting how weird it is (if someone tells you that your level of seeking criticism gives off weird BDSM vibes, you've probably gone too far).
Am I all in favour of going down intellectual rabbit holes to see where they take you? No. And I don't think it should be encouraged wholesale in this community. Maybe I just don't have the intellectual bandwidth to understand the arguments, but a lot of the time it just seems to lead to intellectual wank. With the most blatant example I've come across being infinite ethics. If infinities mean that anything is both good and bad in expectation, that should set off alarm bells that that way madness lies.
The crux of this argument also reminds me of rage therapy. Maybe you shouldn't explore those nagging doubts and express them out loud, just like maybe you shouldn't scream and hit things based on the mistaken belief that it'll help to get out your anger out. Maybe you should just remind yourself that its totally normal for people to have doubts about x-risk compared to other cause areas, because of a whole bunch of reasons that totally make sense.
Thankfully, most people in the effective altruism community do this. They just get on with their lives and jobs, and I think that's a good thing. There will always be some individuals that will go down these intellectual rabbit holes and they won't need to be encouraged to do so. Let them go for gold. But at least in my personal view, the wider community doesn't need to be encouraged to do this.
The way I see it the ‘woke takeover’ is really just movements growing up and learning to regulate some of their sharper edges in exchange for more social acceptance and political power.
I don't agree with this part of the comment, but am aware that you may not have the particular context that may be informing Geoffrey's view (I say may because I don't want to claim to speak for Geoffrey).
These two podcasts, one by Ezra Klein with Michelle Goldberg and one by the NY Times, point to the impact of what is roughly referred to in these podcasts as "identity politics" or "purity politics" (which other people may refer to as "woke politics"). The impact, according to those interviewed, on these movements and nonprofits, has been to significantly diminish their impact on the outside world.
I also think that it would be naïve to claim that these movements were "growing up" considering how long feminism and the civil rights movement have been around. The views expressed in these podcasts also strongly disagree with your claim that they are gaining more political power.
I think these experiences, from those within nonprofits and movements on the left no less, lend support to what Geoffrey is arguing. Especially considering that the EA movement is ultimately about having the most (positive) impact on the outside world.
I'm pretty comfortable with AI taking rough ideas / bullet points and turning them into paragraphs, from which the author can then edit and refine.
I consider myself a good writer, in the sense that I can express my thoughts clearly, but I find that's different from being able write them down if I have a mental block.
Some people are proficient at dashing down their thoughts without resistance to getting started. I'm not one of those people and I'm sure there are many like me.
Thanks for putting some numbers to this, its really useful. I bought a couple of 3M full face respirators (3M 6800) second-hand a couple of years ago for the same reasons you cite. I think I might also buy some 3M half-face mask for my other family members like you recommend.
Great minds think alike! That's a great list of resources you've made. We should definitely look at ways to combine our efforts. I'll send you and Shrestha an email now.
Thanks for the post, Noah. I'm really glad to see this preliminary work being done.
You should reach out to @MikhailSamin, of the AI Governance and Safety Institute, if you haven't already. I think he is doing something similar at the moment: https://manifund.org/projects/testing-and-spreading-messages-to-reduce-ai-x-risk
This is a great post and I've just signed up to your newsletter. Thanks, Garrison.
I'm in New Zealand and wrote a letter as well.
In the dis-spirit of this article I'm going to take the opposite tack and I'm going to explore nagging doubts that I have about this line of argument.
To be honest, I'm starting to get more and more sceptical/annoyed about this behaviour (for want of a better word) in the effective altruism community. I'm certainly not the first to voice these concerns, with both Matthew Yglesias and Scott Alexander noting how weird it is (if someone tells you that your level of seeking criticism gives off weird BDSM vibes, you've probably gone too far).
Am I all in favour of going down intellectual rabbit holes to see where they take you? No. And I don't think it should be encouraged wholesale in this community. Maybe I just don't have the intellectual bandwidth to understand the arguments, but a lot of the time it just seems to lead to intellectual wank. With the most blatant example I've come across being infinite ethics. If infinities mean that anything is both good and bad in expectation, that should set off alarm bells that that way madness lies.
The crux of this argument also reminds me of rage therapy. Maybe you shouldn't explore those nagging doubts and express them out loud, just like maybe you shouldn't scream and hit things based on the mistaken belief that it'll help to get out your anger out. Maybe you should just remind yourself that its totally normal for people to have doubts about x-risk compared to other cause areas, because of a whole bunch of reasons that totally make sense.
Thankfully, most people in the effective altruism community do this. They just get on with their lives and jobs, and I think that's a good thing. There will always be some individuals that will go down these intellectual rabbit holes and they won't need to be encouraged to do so. Let them go for gold. But at least in my personal view, the wider community doesn't need to be encouraged to do this.
Thanks for this, Lizka. A great summary and a great reminder.
This is great to see and the backgrounds of your team members look impressive. I really hope someone will step in to fund this.
I don't agree with this part of the comment, but am aware that you may not have the particular context that may be informing Geoffrey's view (I say may because I don't want to claim to speak for Geoffrey).
These two podcasts, one by Ezra Klein with Michelle Goldberg and one by the NY Times, point to the impact of what is roughly referred to in these podcasts as "identity politics" or "purity politics" (which other people may refer to as "woke politics"). The impact, according to those interviewed, on these movements and nonprofits, has been to significantly diminish their impact on the outside world.
I also think that it would be naïve to claim that these movements were "growing up" considering how long feminism and the civil rights movement have been around. The views expressed in these podcasts also strongly disagree with your claim that they are gaining more political power.
I think these experiences, from those within nonprofits and movements on the left no less, lend support to what Geoffrey is arguing. Especially considering that the EA movement is ultimately about having the most (positive) impact on the outside world.