On object-level concerns: Several comments have indeed stated such concerns. I also think that orgs with poor judgement in one area often exhibit poor judgement in other areas, particularly in smaller orgs. It seems reasonable to be concerned that someone who thought it was a good idea to hire someone recently released from prison for financial crimes for a financial/philanthropy role might also not have the foresight to establish safeguards/controls.
On the value of reputation: I argued why I believe reputation matters in a previous comment. Many AI safety orgs’ path to impact entails convincing policymakers to enact certain legislative changes. This theory of change assumes that the org can actually secure meetings with key staff. The org’s core work (research, expertise, policy recs) matters, but they also need to build credibility and trust.
On how reputation is formed: I would love to live in a world where people looked through and carefully weighed the evidence before drawing conclusions. Unfortunately, that's not how most people outside of EA operate.
Here is one non-EA example: There is controversy over the extent to which the racist, far-right Israeli Minister Ben Gvir represents Israeli policy or society. His party only holds 6 of 120 seats and polling shows he's unpopular. But it's reasonable that outsiders think he is representative because the Prime Minister appointed him to a senior post and continues to sit with him.
Bringing it back to EA: I understand the argument that Manifund and Austin do not represent most of the EA community. But it's reasonable that outsiders might think they do if EA orgs don't take steps to distance themselves. I'm glad to see CEA doing so.
As an aside: I am not sure I agree with the characterization of Ellison's role or Manifund's role as inconsequential. I do not know if Ellison is "low-paid" (which is subjective anyway) --- or what her counterfactual job opportunities would be at this point (I doubt Jane Street would re-hire her). As others have pointed out, she is (according to Manifund's website) now one of just two employees at an organization that, while certainly smaller than CG, has directed millions of dollars to hundreds of projects.
At any rate, Manifund being small may limit the damage, but that's a separate question from whether the decision was defensible.
Meta note: In many ways, EA entails doing math for good. Naturally, it attracts a lot of quantitative-minded people some of whom are less qualitatively inclined. IMO, this sometimes leads people to miss the ways in which PR can be impact-relevant.
An underlying assumption here seems to be not just that people deserve to make a living, but that forgiveness is inherently good. While this is a common axiom in the West, it is not obvious to me that this moral claim is correct.
Two issues regarding communications:
On a macro level: “Reputation” is not a vanity consideration. It is integral to the theory of change of many EA orgs, particularly those focused on AI policy. A random legislative staffer is unlikely to see the comments on this post, but they may see the upcoming Netflix series on FTX. A google search on “FTX and EA” now reveals this post: https://whatweare.substack.com/p/no-one-is-going-to-save-the-ea-brand. It's not impossible to imagine this hiring decision making it harder for AI policy orgs to secure meetings with staffers to advance important safety legislation.
On a micro level: Most people in EA probably would have opposed this hire anyway, but this press release seems to have only engendered more concern and, frankly, confusion. Several people have sought clarity regarding the rationale for the hire as this statement implied a mixture of personal considerations. I was most perplexed by the section on transparency, which reads: “I apologize for our minor deception, in using a pseudonym over the last couple months. I still endorse having done this”. These two sentences seem contradictory and read as something like: “I’m sorry if you were offended.”
I understand why some EAs might be skeptical about the importance of communications. After all, lots of ineffective organizations have amazing comms. While good comms does not necessarily imply good work, bad comms often does indeed imply a real judgement issue, which one might reasonably expect would affect the core work as well.
Regarding your suggestion to go work outside of EA: I'd be curious if there's data showing that it's easier to get a job outside of EA. Anecdotally, I've found that if you have EA experience, you have a pretty decent chance of at least being called back for an interview or work/test compared to more mainstream fields - probably due to EA still being very niche.
On object-level concerns: Several comments have indeed stated such concerns. I also think that orgs with poor judgement in one area often exhibit poor judgement in other areas, particularly in smaller orgs. It seems reasonable to be concerned that someone who thought it was a good idea to hire someone recently released from prison for financial crimes for a financial/philanthropy role might also not have the foresight to establish safeguards/controls.
On the value of reputation: I argued why I believe reputation matters in a previous comment. Many AI safety orgs’ path to impact entails convincing policymakers to enact certain legislative changes. This theory of change assumes that the org can actually secure meetings with key staff. The org’s core work (research, expertise, policy recs) matters, but they also need to build credibility and trust.
On how reputation is formed: I would love to live in a world where people looked through and carefully weighed the evidence before drawing conclusions. Unfortunately, that's not how most people outside of EA operate.
Here is one non-EA example: There is controversy over the extent to which the racist, far-right Israeli Minister Ben Gvir represents Israeli policy or society. His party only holds 6 of 120 seats and polling shows he's unpopular. But it's reasonable that outsiders think he is representative because the Prime Minister appointed him to a senior post and continues to sit with him.
Bringing it back to EA: I understand the argument that Manifund and Austin do not represent most of the EA community. But it's reasonable that outsiders might think they do if EA orgs don't take steps to distance themselves. I'm glad to see CEA doing so.
As an aside: I am not sure I agree with the characterization of Ellison's role or Manifund's role as inconsequential. I do not know if Ellison is "low-paid" (which is subjective anyway) --- or what her counterfactual job opportunities would be at this point (I doubt Jane Street would re-hire her). As others have pointed out, she is (according to Manifund's website) now one of just two employees at an organization that, while certainly smaller than CG, has directed millions of dollars to hundreds of projects.
At any rate, Manifund being small may limit the damage, but that's a separate question from whether the decision was defensible.
Meta note: In many ways, EA entails doing math for good. Naturally, it attracts a lot of quantitative-minded people some of whom are less qualitatively inclined. IMO, this sometimes leads people to miss the ways in which PR can be impact-relevant.
I understand why some EAs might be skeptical about the importance of communications. After all, lots of ineffective organizations have amazing comms. While good comms does not necessarily imply good work, bad comms often does indeed imply a real judgement issue, which one might reasonably expect would affect the core work as well.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Regarding your suggestion to go work outside of EA: I'd be curious if there's data showing that it's easier to get a job outside of EA. Anecdotally, I've found that if you have EA experience, you have a pretty decent chance of at least being called back for an interview or work/test compared to more mainstream fields - probably due to EA still being very niche.