You spoke to 20+ reviewers, half of which were sought out to disagree with you, and not a single one could provide a case for differential technology?
Personally I read this as a straightforward accusation of dishonesty - something I would expect moderators to object to if the comment was critical (rather than supportive) of EA orthodoxy.
This is remarkably similar to a critique we got from Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh
I also found it suspicious that Rubi felt the need to comment using an anonymous throwaway account despite speaking in favor of established power structures.
To clarify, that's not to say Rubi is necessarily Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh. I have no idea and I don't know Seán.
However, this situation is very strange. Almost everyone on the EAforum uses their real name or a very thin pseudonym.
I am anonymous because vocally disagreeing with the status quo would probably destroy any prospects of getting hired or funded by EA orgs (see my heavily downvoted comment about my experiences somewhere at the bottom of this thread).
But it is basic background knowledge, and that point needs to be made clear to those less familiar with the topic! This isn't an issue of understanding and disagreeing, as demonstrated by his non-sequitur about COVID if nothing else.
If, for instance, someone who has written about AI more than once argues that the Chinese government funding AI research for solely humanitarian reasons, you have two choices: they are being honest but ignorant (which is unlikely, embarrassing for them and worrying for any community that treats them as an authority) or they are being dishonest (which is bad for everyone). There is no "charitable" position here.
I understand and agree with the discourse norms here, but if someone is demonstrably, repeatedly, unequivocally acting in bad faith then others must be able to call that out.
I think this conflates the criticism of the idea of unitary and unstoppable technological progress with opposition to any and all technological progress.
The argument is too vague to counter: how do you disprove claims about unspecified problems with unspecified tools in unspecified contexts?
There is no snark in this comment, I am simply stating my views as clearly and unambiguously as possible.
I'd like to add that as someone whose social circle includes both EAs and non-EAS, I have never witnessed reactions as defensive and fragile as those made by some EAs in response to criticism of orthodox EA views. This kind of behaviour simply isn't normal.
Which  alternatives to EV have what problems for what uses in what contexts?
Why do those problems make them worse than EV, a tool that requires the use of numerical probabilities for poorly-defined events often with no precedent or useful data?
What makes all alternatives to EV less preferable to the way in which EV is usually used in existential risk scholarship today, where subjectively-generated probabilities are asserted by "thought leaders" with no methodology and no justification, about events that are not rigorously defined nor separable, which are then fed into idealized economic models, policy documents, and press packs?
Honestly, fair enough.
Personally I read this as a straightforward accusation of dishonesty - something I would expect moderators to object to if the comment was critical (rather than supportive) of EA orthodoxy.
I also found it suspicious that Rubi felt the need to comment using an anonymous throwaway account despite speaking in favor of established power structures.
To clarify, that's not to say Rubi is necessarily Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh. I have no idea and I don't know Seán.
However, this situation is very strange. Almost everyone on the EAforum uses their real name or a very thin pseudonym.
I am anonymous because vocally disagreeing with the status quo would probably destroy any prospects of getting hired or funded by EA orgs (see my heavily downvoted comment about my experiences somewhere at the bottom of this thread).
This clearly doesn't apply to Rubi, so what's up?
It's also not the claim being made:
But it is basic background knowledge, and that point needs to be made clear to those less familiar with the topic! This isn't an issue of understanding and disagreeing, as demonstrated by his non-sequitur about COVID if nothing else.
If, for instance, someone who has written about AI more than once argues that the Chinese government funding AI research for solely humanitarian reasons, you have two choices: they are being honest but ignorant (which is unlikely, embarrassing for them and worrying for any community that treats them as an authority) or they are being dishonest (which is bad for everyone). There is no "charitable" position here.
I understand and agree with the discourse norms here, but if someone is demonstrably, repeatedly, unequivocally acting in bad faith then others must be able to call that out.
It is morally tenable under some moral codes but not others. That's the point.
I think you switched the two by accident
Otherwise an excellent comment even if I disagree with most of it, have an updoot
I think this conflates the criticism of the idea of unitary and unstoppable technological progress with opposition to any and all technological progress.
Strong upvote for this if nothing else.
(the rest is also brilliant though, thank you so much for speaking up!)
The argument is too vague to counter: how do you disprove claims about unspecified problems with unspecified tools in unspecified contexts?
There is no snark in this comment, I am simply stating my views as clearly and unambiguously as possible.
I'd like to add that as someone whose social circle includes both EAs and non-EAS, I have never witnessed reactions as defensive and fragile as those made by some EAs in response to criticism of orthodox EA views. This kind of behaviour simply isn't normal.
Which  alternatives to EV have what problems for what uses in what contexts?
Why do those problems make them worse than EV, a tool that requires the use of numerical probabilities for poorly-defined events often with no precedent or useful data?
What makes all alternatives to EV less preferable to the way in which EV is usually used in existential risk scholarship today, where subjectively-generated probabilities are asserted by "thought leaders" with no methodology and no justification, about events that are not rigorously defined nor separable, which are then fed into idealized economic models, policy documents, and press packs?