I think all your comments are valid. I definitely did not agree with the conclusions or the negativity towards utilitarianism as the vast majority of EA's see it.
My motive for sharing this was: in previous posts I've shared examples of where EA's are unjustly considered, basically, to weird to be relevant, without any clear justification of why. In this article, at least the allegedly flawed assumptions of EA's were clearly outlined, and it was not outrageous to argue that, yes, some EA's do think like that sometimes.
So, IMHO we all need to be ready with arguments like what you've outlined, to say "I can see why you think that - but here is a better way to think about it, and I think it will reassure you that most EA's, even those who call themselves utilitarians, do not have these crazy ideas."
100% feel the same way. Thank you for stating it so clearly.
It is sickening to watch our leaders do exactly nothing, as if this was some sort of joke.
It makes me incredibly angry that, at what may be the most important time in human history, at a time when the world desperately needs good leadership, the most powerful man in the world is such a vile, ignorant moron without a care for anything but his own ego and his bank account. This is what makes me fear that it really could get to extinction, because he is going to let humanity expire rather than listen to advice that he doesn't agree with. And those spineless Republicans who refuse to stop him. And the pathetic EU leadership who talk a good game but ultimately care more about profit. It is sad, but humanity depends on the wisdom and decency of Xi Jinping - normally we'd be hoping we could persuade him to be reasonable, now it's likely that he will be the reasonable one.
It makes me angry that so many people are stating so openly, factually, that humanity may be destroyed. We know they are the experts, but, as Al Gore would say, believing them would be inconvenient for us, so we just ignore them.
It makes me angry that we have a world in which experts are no longer trusted. Yes, we understand how this has been achieved and for what ends, but at times like this the world needs people who can inspire universal trust, and instead anyone who disagrees is labelled a fraud or a traitor or naive ...
I suppose writing this post has made me realise that I don't feel lonely so much as angry.
I would counter that EA / Rationalism is not a set of ideas but a way of thinking, analogous to the scientific method. You can disagree with the ideas that some EA's or Rationalists have, but you cannot argue that approaching a topic using data and logic and science is flawed. That is just plain wrong.
For years now, we have seen a constant attack on the scientific method, on science itself. And IMHO we have not pushed back correctly, and specifically, we have not pushed back hard enough and bluntly enough.
By trying to be reasonable with people who are not being reasonable, we have only lent credibility to their false ideas. And the result is that the most advanced democracy in the world officially denies climate change and has a Secretary of Health who trusts tictoc influencers more than doctors.
We need to call bullshit on arguments like this. It is bullshit. If you disagree with the conclusion, sure, argue against that based on logic or data. But you don't get to dismiss it just because the people who reached that conclusion used logic and data and science to reach it. You just don't. It's not an "everyone is entitled to their opinion" case - it's just plain wrong.
We need to be willing to stand behind our conclusions, and call out those who claim to refute them with ad hominem arguments.
I'm not sure what to think. It feels like EA's are cool with being seen as weird. And I'm not cool with that, because IMHO it dramatically reduces our potential for impact. This being an example, where arguments which make sense about AI safety get rejected for no reason other than that they come from "Rationalists."
Ultimately do we want to feel good about ourselves, reassured that we're right even as everyone else is wrong, or do we actually want to make sure that the right decisions get taken to prevent AI catastrophe?
My problem is that it seems like ALL the coverage that EA's get is like this.
I do take your point that EA's may seem weird, but most of the EA's I know are mostly weird in a good way - more caring, more focused on helping, more concerned with the victims, ... - but we allow all this to be overshadowed by the perceived weirdness of using logic and data to help people more, or by stereotypes based on more controversial ideas like longtermism taken to its logical extreme.
And I'm not worried about its effect on our delicate egos .. I'm worried by how this limits our potential to impact the vital debates of our time. It frustrates me that EA arguments can be dismissed by ad hominem arguments. This article basically says :`"we can ignore those concerns, they only come from those weird EA's."
Absolutely. I agree. I just think it's sad - for us but also for them. My impression is that for every "successful" academic, there are 10 frustrated academics who feel they have been undervalued, disrespected, unlucky, ... and even the successful ones frequently have very high stress levels - whereas those who focus on the subject rather than the prestige tend to be happier. Of course some achieve both and that is the ideal.
I hope you're right. To be crystal clear, I fully support giving staff a good living wage. And I have no doubt that the aim team are extremely self-motivated. But I just fear that you are betting against decades of experience and research about motivation. I would love to be wrong.
I'm curious why you think this was AI/LLM reasoning.
I'm not sure what precise objection you have to the article. There is a clear, tangible problem: what we are doing now is not working. The majority of people are not engaged in AI Safety. When people are not engaged in a critical current topic, that is almost by definition a communication problem.
You didn't ask me (I think), but yes, I believe that if there is no alternative funding available, then we need to take funding from other critical EA work and use it to get the general public engaged in AI. I believe that if we do the calculation accurately, the impact per $ of getting the American and EU voters actively considering AI when they vote is enormous, as it will cause politicians to take the issue, and safety concerns, far more seriously than they are currently, and lead to sensible regulation.
One data-point to put this in context: multinational companies (Unilever, J&J, Anheiser-Busch, etc) regularly spend more money on advertising (short-form communication aimed at the general public) than they spend on producing the products they sell. This is because it is proven to make a difference, and they can measure the impact per dollar precisely.
It sounds like you either do not believe this is valuable, or do not believe it can be done. These companies, and the AI labs and the climate-deniers would not be spending so much money on communication if it wasn't effective.
The AI Safety movement does not need to spend a lot of money on this, but we do need to do the bare minimum, or we're just letting the other side dominate the public debate.
I think all your comments are valid. I definitely did not agree with the conclusions or the negativity towards utilitarianism as the vast majority of EA's see it.
My motive for sharing this was: in previous posts I've shared examples of where EA's are unjustly considered, basically, to weird to be relevant, without any clear justification of why. In this article, at least the allegedly flawed assumptions of EA's were clearly outlined, and it was not outrageous to argue that, yes, some EA's do think like that sometimes.
So, IMHO we all need to be ready with arguments like what you've outlined, to say "I can see why you think that - but here is a better way to think about it, and I think it will reassure you that most EA's, even those who call themselves utilitarians, do not have these crazy ideas."
100% feel the same way. Thank you for stating it so clearly.
It is sickening to watch our leaders do exactly nothing, as if this was some sort of joke.
It makes me incredibly angry that, at what may be the most important time in human history, at a time when the world desperately needs good leadership, the most powerful man in the world is such a vile, ignorant moron without a care for anything but his own ego and his bank account. This is what makes me fear that it really could get to extinction, because he is going to let humanity expire rather than listen to advice that he doesn't agree with. And those spineless Republicans who refuse to stop him. And the pathetic EU leadership who talk a good game but ultimately care more about profit. It is sad, but humanity depends on the wisdom and decency of Xi Jinping - normally we'd be hoping we could persuade him to be reasonable, now it's likely that he will be the reasonable one.
It makes me angry that so many people are stating so openly, factually, that humanity may be destroyed. We know they are the experts, but, as Al Gore would say, believing them would be inconvenient for us, so we just ignore them.
It makes me angry that we have a world in which experts are no longer trusted. Yes, we understand how this has been achieved and for what ends, but at times like this the world needs people who can inspire universal trust, and instead anyone who disagrees is labelled a fraud or a traitor or naive ...
I suppose writing this post has made me realise that I don't feel lonely so much as angry.
I have to agree that the motivation and talent of AIM staff is pretty unique!
I would counter that EA / Rationalism is not a set of ideas but a way of thinking, analogous to the scientific method. You can disagree with the ideas that some EA's or Rationalists have, but you cannot argue that approaching a topic using data and logic and science is flawed. That is just plain wrong.
For years now, we have seen a constant attack on the scientific method, on science itself. And IMHO we have not pushed back correctly, and specifically, we have not pushed back hard enough and bluntly enough.
By trying to be reasonable with people who are not being reasonable, we have only lent credibility to their false ideas. And the result is that the most advanced democracy in the world officially denies climate change and has a Secretary of Health who trusts tictoc influencers more than doctors.
We need to call bullshit on arguments like this. It is bullshit. If you disagree with the conclusion, sure, argue against that based on logic or data. But you don't get to dismiss it just because the people who reached that conclusion used logic and data and science to reach it. You just don't. It's not an "everyone is entitled to their opinion" case - it's just plain wrong.
We need to be willing to stand behind our conclusions, and call out those who claim to refute them with ad hominem arguments.
I'm not sure what to think. It feels like EA's are cool with being seen as weird. And I'm not cool with that, because IMHO it dramatically reduces our potential for impact. This being an example, where arguments which make sense about AI safety get rejected for no reason other than that they come from "Rationalists."
Ultimately do we want to feel good about ourselves, reassured that we're right even as everyone else is wrong, or do we actually want to make sure that the right decisions get taken to prevent AI catastrophe?
My problem is that it seems like ALL the coverage that EA's get is like this.
I do take your point that EA's may seem weird, but most of the EA's I know are mostly weird in a good way - more caring, more focused on helping, more concerned with the victims, ... - but we allow all this to be overshadowed by the perceived weirdness of using logic and data to help people more, or by stereotypes based on more controversial ideas like longtermism taken to its logical extreme.
And I'm not worried about its effect on our delicate egos .. I'm worried by how this limits our potential to impact the vital debates of our time. It frustrates me that EA arguments can be dismissed by ad hominem arguments. This article basically says :`"we can ignore those concerns, they only come from those weird EA's."
Absolutely. I agree. I just think it's sad - for us but also for them. My impression is that for every "successful" academic, there are 10 frustrated academics who feel they have been undervalued, disrespected, unlucky, ... and even the successful ones frequently have very high stress levels - whereas those who focus on the subject rather than the prestige tend to be happier. Of course some achieve both and that is the ideal.
Fair push-back, indeed there is no need to exaggerate when the facts are already so strong!
I hope you're right. To be crystal clear, I fully support giving staff a good living wage. And I have no doubt that the aim team are extremely self-motivated. But I just fear that you are betting against decades of experience and research about motivation. I would love to be wrong.
I'm curious why you think this was AI/LLM reasoning.
I'm not sure what precise objection you have to the article. There is a clear, tangible problem: what we are doing now is not working. The majority of people are not engaged in AI Safety. When people are not engaged in a critical current topic, that is almost by definition a communication problem.
You didn't ask me (I think), but yes, I believe that if there is no alternative funding available, then we need to take funding from other critical EA work and use it to get the general public engaged in AI. I believe that if we do the calculation accurately, the impact per $ of getting the American and EU voters actively considering AI when they vote is enormous, as it will cause politicians to take the issue, and safety concerns, far more seriously than they are currently, and lead to sensible regulation.
One data-point to put this in context: multinational companies (Unilever, J&J, Anheiser-Busch, etc) regularly spend more money on advertising (short-form communication aimed at the general public) than they spend on producing the products they sell. This is because it is proven to make a difference, and they can measure the impact per dollar precisely.
It sounds like you either do not believe this is valuable, or do not believe it can be done. These companies, and the AI labs and the climate-deniers would not be spending so much money on communication if it wasn't effective.
The AI Safety movement does not need to spend a lot of money on this, but we do need to do the bare minimum, or we're just letting the other side dominate the public debate.