I think "outdated term" is a power move, trying to say you're a "geek" to separate yourself from the "mops" and "sociopaths". She could genuinely think, or be surrounded by people who think, 2nd wave or 3rd wave EA (i.e. us here on the forum in 2025) are lame, and that the real EA was some older thing that had died. 

I roughly feel more comfortable passing the responsibility onto wiser successors. I still like the "positive vs negative longtermism" framework, I think positive longtermism (increasing the value of futures where we survive) risks value lock-in too much. Negative longtermism is a clear cut responsibility with no real downside unless you're presented with a really tortured example about spending currently existing lives to buy future lives or something. 

I distinguish believing that good successor criteria are brittle from speciesism. I think antispeciesism does not oblige me to accept literally any successor.

I do feel icky coalitioning with outright speciesists (who reject the possibility of a good successor in principle), but I think my goals and all of generalized flourishing benefits a lot from those coalitions so I grin and bear it. 

I wrote a quick take on lesswrong about evals. Funders seem enchanted with them, and I'm curious about why that is. 

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kq8CZzcPKQtCzbGxg/quinn-s-shortform?commentId=HzDD3Lvh6C9zdqpMh 

I love these kinds of questions! I attempted a roundup here but it never really caught on 

nitpick: you say open source which implies I can read it and rebuild it on my machine. I can't really "read" the weights in this way, I can run it on my machine but I can't compile it without a berjillion chips. "open weight" is the preferred nomenclature, it fits the situation better. 

(epistemic status: a pedantry battle, but this ship has sailed as I can see other commenters are saying open source rather than open weight). 

And sorry, I’m not going to be embarrassed about trying to improve the world

You, my friend, are not sorry :)

In my mind since EA premises are vague and generic, any criticism above a quality bar gets borg'd in. So no, I didn't ever see an "external" criticism of EA be any good-- if it was good, then it'd be internal criticism, as far as im concerned.

It's important to consider adverse selection. People who get hounded out of everywhere else are inexplicably* invited to a forecasting conference, of course they come! they have nowhere else to go! 

* inexplicably, in the sense that a forecasting conference is inviting people specialized in demographics and genetics-- it's a little related, but not that related. 

how much better is chatgpt than claude, in your experience? I feel like it wouldn't be costly for me to drop down to free tier at openai but keep premium at anthropic, though I would miss the system prompt / custom gpt features. (I'm currently 20/month at both)