"...but do not think that they are smart or committed enough to be engaging at your level?" was intended to be from a generic insecure (or realistic) EA's perspective, not yours. Sorry for my confusing phrasing.
How long ago did you attend your CFAR workshop? My sense is that the content CFAR teaches and who the teachers are have changed a lot over the years. Maybe they've gotten better (or worse?) about teaching the "true form."
(Or maybe you were saying you also didn't get the "true form" even in the more recent AIRCS workshops?)
So, to clarify: this program is for people who are already mostly sure they want to work on AI Safety? That is, a person who is excited about ML, and would maaaaybe be interested in working on safety-related topics, if they found those topics interesting, is not who you are targeting?
Yeah, I am sympathetic to that. I am curious how you decide where to draw the line here. For instance, you were willing to express judgment of QRI elsewhere in the comments.
Would it be possible to briefly list the people or orgs whose work you *most* respect? Or would the omissions be too obvious?
I sometimes wish there were good ways to more broadly disseminate negative judgments or critiques of orgs/people from thoughtful and well-connected people. But, understandably, people are sensitive to that kind of thing, and it can end up eating a lot of time and weakening relationships.
What are your regular go-to sources of information online? That is, are there certain blogs you religiously read? Vox? Do you follow the EA Forum or LessWrong? Do you mostly read papers that you find through some search algorithm you previously set up? Etc.
4) You seem like you have had a natural strong critical thinking streak since you were quite young (e.g., you talk about thinking that various mainstream ideas were dumb). Any unique advice for how to develop this skill in people who do not have it naturally?
3) I've seen several places where you criticize fellow EAs for their lack of engagement or critical thinking. For example, three years ago, you wrote:
I also have criticisms about EAs being overconfident and acting as if they know way more than they do about a wide variety of things, but my criticisms are very different from [Holden's criticisms]. For example, I’m super unimpressed that so many EAs didn’t know that GiveWell thinks that deworming has a relatively low probability of very high impact. I’m also unimpressed by how many people are incredibly confident that animals aren’t morally relevant despite knowing very little about the topic.
Do you think this has improved at all? And what are the current things that you are annoyed most EAs do not seem to know or engage with?
2) Somewhat relatedly, there seems to be a lot of angst within EA related to intelligence / power / funding / jobs / respect / social status / etc., and I am curious if you have any interesting thoughts about that.
1) Do you have any advice for people who want to be involved in EA, but do not think that they are smart or committed enough to be engaging at your level? Do you think there are good roles for such people in this community / movement / whatever? If so, what are those roles?
"...but do not think that they are smart or committed enough to be engaging at your level?" was intended to be from a generic insecure (or realistic) EA's perspective, not yours. Sorry for my confusing phrasing.
How long ago did you attend your CFAR workshop? My sense is that the content CFAR teaches and who the teachers are have changed a lot over the years. Maybe they've gotten better (or worse?) about teaching the "true form."
(Or maybe you were saying you also didn't get the "true form" even in the more recent AIRCS workshops?)
So, to clarify: this program is for people who are already mostly sure they want to work on AI Safety? That is, a person who is excited about ML, and would maaaaybe be interested in working on safety-related topics, if they found those topics interesting, is not who you are targeting?
If you feel comfortable sharing: who are the people whose judgment on this topic you think is better?
Yeah, I am sympathetic to that. I am curious how you decide where to draw the line here. For instance, you were willing to express judgment of QRI elsewhere in the comments.
Would it be possible to briefly list the people or orgs whose work you *most* respect? Or would the omissions be too obvious?
I sometimes wish there were good ways to more broadly disseminate negative judgments or critiques of orgs/people from thoughtful and well-connected people. But, understandably, people are sensitive to that kind of thing, and it can end up eating a lot of time and weakening relationships.
What are your regular go-to sources of information online? That is, are there certain blogs you religiously read? Vox? Do you follow the EA Forum or LessWrong? Do you mostly read papers that you find through some search algorithm you previously set up? Etc.
4) You seem like you have had a natural strong critical thinking streak since you were quite young (e.g., you talk about thinking that various mainstream ideas were dumb). Any unique advice for how to develop this skill in people who do not have it naturally?
3) I've seen several places where you criticize fellow EAs for their lack of engagement or critical thinking. For example, three years ago, you wrote:
Do you think this has improved at all? And what are the current things that you are annoyed most EAs do not seem to know or engage with?
2) Somewhat relatedly, there seems to be a lot of angst within EA related to intelligence / power / funding / jobs / respect / social status / etc., and I am curious if you have any interesting thoughts about that.
1) Do you have any advice for people who want to be involved in EA, but do not think that they are smart or committed enough to be engaging at your level? Do you think there are good roles for such people in this community / movement / whatever? If so, what are those roles?