I really loved this quick take from Lizka, especially this part:
At the same time, trying to actually do anything is really hard.[4] Appreciation for doers is often undersupplied. Being in leadership positions or engaging in public discussions is a valuable service, but opens you up to a lot of (often stressful) criticism, which acts as a disincentive for being public. Psychological safety is important in teams (and communities), so it’s unfortunate that critical environments lead more people to feel like they would be judged harshly for potential mistakes. Not all criticism is useful enough to be worth engaging with (or sharing). Responding to criticism can be time-consuming or otherwise costly and isn’t always worth it.[5] Sometimes people who are sharing “criticism” hate the project for reasons that aren’t what’s explicitly stated, or just want to vent or build themselves up.[6]
A lot of communities I've been part of-- science, EA, rationality-- sanctify criticism, but this can set up bad dynamics. The only truly safe position in EA/rationality is as a gadfly. Well, I have a criticism: It sucks that gadflies are protected and doers are punished in EA. It is lazy, it destroys morale, and it does not serve impact.
A lot of criticism just isn't that valuable, and we need to have the courage to realize this. We (especially LWers) treat criticism as a deontic good, and it blinds us to evaluating the expected value of criticism, from different sources and of different kinds, in terms of impact.
Heeding criticism is not free-- it can be immensely costly, and it can lead to far worse results than would have obtained otherwise. At the very least it takes time and energy to process and address criticism. The criticism, good or bad, has an emotional cost as well. Sometimes, it is very worth the cost of heeding criticism to get crucial information and do a better job. But sometimes criticism is poorly informed or wrong (especially if the act of criticizing is highly incentivized). Sometimes criticism is right but not worth the distraction from the primary work. Sometimes there is a social threat to public criticism, that the person will be rejected if they do not comply, which is costly to them personally and costly to the world that doesn't get more of their productive energy or original perspective.
Yet another problem with criticism, right or wrong, is that engaging with it feels like doing important work (and visible work if it's on a public forum) when actually that's highly questionably. Criticism of one's work or one's self is very emotionally salient and it can feel urgent to address it when it often is not. Similar to getting warm fuzzies from doing work that feels good, I get what I call the "hot spikies" when I feel like I am under attack and must defend myself. Just as it's not optimal to base your doing good decisions on obtaining warm fuzzies, it is not optimal to decide what to do and how to spend your time being spurred on by hot spikies.
It's risky to disregard criticism or fail to engage because that's a visibly unvirtuous behavior. I see this as the same as being unwilling to switch your giving from Make-a-Wish to AMF, because the world notices "taking away" from dying kids but the world isn't doing the QALY analysis. When a critic opines or when a doer listens to all the criticism they receive and changes their behavior in response, they get the small, guaranteed hit of being virtuous. Meanwhile, no one is keeping track of what they could have done without that criticism-- maybe they would have gone for a big grant or made a new partnership that was highly impactful if they hadn't been made to feel like a fool. Maybe they would have a moderate impact career that's considered unfashionable in the community but counterfactually superior to what they did instead. Maybe a vocal critic feels territorial and is trying to keep this new doer off their turf by discouraging them with criticism-- we need to consider the cost if that motivated critic is allowed to succeed. We need to show the same bravery to disregard unproductive discourse and selective demands for rigor as we do to look beyond less effective charities. The stakes are exactly the same.
I will very likely not engage with comments on this post, because it's not worth my time and energy. I wrote it because I wanted people to read it and take it to heart, not to call out a typo or reflexively argue about it, even though that is what is more easily rewarded. I'm going to practice the courage to rise above the hot spikies and focus on impact.
Criticism of who? If anything EAs have been far too trusting of their actual leaders. Conversely they have been far too critical of people like Holly. Its not a simple matter of some parameter being too high.
Holden is married to Dario Amodei's sister. Dario is a founder of Anthropic. Holden was a major driver of EA AI policy.
Dustin is a literal billionaire who, along with his wife, has control over almost all EA institutions. Being critical of Dustin, while at all relying on EA funding or support, is certainly brave. Open Phil is known to be quite capricious. If anything the EA comunity was far too trusting of its leaders and funders. Dustin has tons of ties, including financial, to the AI industry.
These serious conflicts explain a lot of why EA took such a strange approach to AI policy.
However criticizing random EAs who are trying to do a good job is completely demotivating. There needs to be some sense of proportionality. I remember being asked about the potential downsides of my project when I applied to future fund. There were concerns about what, to me, seemed extremely unlikely outcomes. It is very funny looking back given that FTX was, at that time, running a gigantic fraud. Criticism of the locally powerful is undersupplied. Criticism of random people is very oversupplied.
This is a bit of a sidenote, but while it's true that "LWers" (on average) have a different threshold for how valuable criticism needs to be to justify its costs, it's not true that "we" treat it as a deontic good. Observe, as evidence, the many hundreds of hours that various community members (including admins) have spent arguing with users like Said about whether their style of engagement and criticism was either effective at achieving its stated aims, or even worth the cost if it was[1]. "We" may have different thresholds, but "we" do not think that all criticism is necessarily good or worth the attentional cost.
The appropriate threshold is an empirical question whose answer will vary based on social context, people, optimization targets, etc.
Object-level, I probably agree that EA spends too much of its attention on bad criticism, but I also think it doesn't allocate enough attention to good criticism, and this isn't exactly the kind of thing that "nets out". It's more of a failure of taste/caring about the right things, which is hard to fix by adjusting the "quantity" dial.
He has even been subjected to moderation action more than once, so the earlier claim re: gadflies doesn't stand up either.
an observation I've had recently across a few examples* is that
I get the idea that all arguments should be taken on their merits in a place like this, but in practice, it's not that hard to imagine that a community that excessively rewards criticism becomes (ironically) prone to groupthink as a failure mode
*I've been sitting on this thought for a year or so but I don't want to further name the examples because the criticizers I would criticize have more social capital than me and it could easily be bad for me to do so lol
I'm sympathetic, but to make the counterpoint: EA needs some way to protect against bullshit.
Scientists gatekeep publication behind peer review. Wikipedia requires that every claim be backed up with a source. Journalists employ fact checkers. None of these are in any way perfect (and are often deeply flawed), but the point is that theoretically, at least one qualified person with expertise in the subject has checked over what has been written for errors.
In contrast, how does EA ensure that the claims made here are actually accurate? Well, we first hope that people are honest and get everything right initially, but of course that can never ensure anything. The main mechanism relied upon is that some random reader will bother to read an article closely enough to spot errors in it, and then write a criticism calling the error out in the comments, or write up their own post calling out said error. Of course this is sometimes acrimonious. But if we don't put up the criticism, the BS claims will cement themselves, and start influencing actual real world decisions that affect millions of dollars and peoples lives.
If we stop "sanctifying" criticism, then what exactly is stopping BS from taking over the entire movement (if it hasn't already)? I've certainly seen actually good criticism dismissed as bad criticism because the author misunderstood their critique, or differed in assumptions. If you're going to rely on criticism as the imperfect hammer to root out bullshit nails, you kinda have to give it a special place.
I don't see how asking for higher standards for criticism makes EA defenseless against "bullshit."
I actually would argue the opposite: if we keep encouraging and incentivizing any kind of criticism, and tolerate needlessly acrimonious personal attacks, we end up in an environment where nobody proposes anything besides the status quo, and the status quo becomes increasingly less transparent.
Three recent examples that come to mind:
I think Holly_Elmore herself is another example: she used to write posts like "We are in triage every second of every day", which I think are very useful to make EA less "bullshit", but now mostly doesn't post on this forum, partly because of the bad quality costly criticism she receives.
I largely agree with the last section of this comment from Aaron Gertler written one year ago:
I personally fear that the current discussion environment on this forum errs too much in the "unkind criticism" direction, and I see at least two large downsides:
I used to think that accepting callousness was required to have technical excellence, e.g. reading how people like famous software engineer Linus Torvalds used to communicate. After seeing many extremely competent people communicate criticism in a professional and constructive manner, I have completely changed my mind. Torvalds also apologised and changed communication style years ago.
I believe that a culture of more constructive and higher-quality criticism would encourage more discussion overall, not less, especially from experienced professionals who have different perspectives from mainline EA thinking.
See also this paragraph from the Charity Entrepreneurship handbook:
Writing as myself, not as a moderator
I'm not sure if he meant Good Ventures, Open Philanthropy, or some other group
I think telling people to critique less is a suboptimal solution for this. At least in theory, it's more ideal for people to be willing to do things despite getting critiques.
Someone can write a critique for anything. Instead of checking if there's a critique, you could check "does a neutral party think this critique is stronger than average for a random EA project" or something like that. (If the project is weaker than average in light of the critique, that suggests resources should perhaps be reallocated.)
Downside risk is everywhere, and its mere existence shouldn't be sufficient to cause inaction.
I read your post as saying we need some level of criticism, and I agree. I understand what the OP is saying as a reaction to the current temperature in these online communities like EA, and arguing right now we have too much criticism and not enough doing. Which is because criticism is much cheaper than doing.
If you wanted to effectively take the other side, you’d need to quantify the current level of criticism and its chilling effect and argue for turning the dial up or down.
Which of course is very hard, that’s why criticizing is so much easier than doing.
I think it's important to exercise judgment here. Many (e.g. political) communities reflexively dismiss criticism, in ways that are epistemically irresponsible and lead them into pathology. It's important to be more open-minded than that, and to have a general stance of being open to the possibility that one is wrong.
But there's also a very real risk (sometimes realized, IMO, on this forum) of people going too far in the opposite direction and reflexively accept criticism as apt or reasonable when it plainly isn't. (This can take the form of downvoting or pushback against those of us who explain why a criticism is bad/unreasonable.) Sometimes people enact a sort of performative open-mindedness which calls on them to welcome anti-EA criticism and reject criticism of that criticism more or less independently of the actual content or its merits. I find that very annoying.
(An example: when I first shared my 'Why Not Effective Altruism?' draft, the feedback here seemed extremely negative and discouraging -- some even accused me of bad faith! -- because people didn't like that I was criticizing the critics of EA. Now that it's published, many seem to appreciate the paper and agree that it's helpful. shrug.)
My sense is that this problem isn't as bad now as in early 2023 when EA was going through a ridiculous self-flagellation phase.
What you call performative open-mindedness (I have been internally referring to it as epistemic virtue signaling) is a very real and important phenomenon, and one I wish people wrote about more and were more aware of.
Maybe I spoke too soon: it "seems unfair" to characterize Wenar's WIRED article as "discouraging life-saving aid"? (A comment that is immediately met with two agree votes!) The pathology lives on.
I think there’s a lot of truth to this; the part about sanctifying criticism and critical gadflies especially resonated with me. I think it is rational to ~ignore a fair bit of criticism, especially online criticism, though this is easier said than done.
Two pieces of advice I encountered recently that I’m trying to implement more in my life (both a bit trite, but perhaps helpful as heuristics):
I’m going to leave the most excruciatingly annoying comment, but in doing so, prove my point: it is possible to take positive and negative feedback without it affecting you much, if at all.
If you view yourself as unconditionally lovable (as I do myself), then one of two things happen:
someone gives me a compliment, I absorb it like “duh, I know I’m extremely lovable”
someone gives me criticism, I’m like “yeah that’s a point, also I’m extremely lovable”
I think the reason it can feel painful is because what our minds hear during public criticism from an evo psych perspective is;
‘this community hates me’ → ‘I might get kicked out of this community’ → ‘When I get kicked out of community I die’
And I think self love / esteem is a buttress for fear of death.
The reason this is an annoying comment is because I’m not pointing at a problem the community has (which could also be true!), but suggesting the information an individual receives passes through an interpretative matrix in their minds before landing as “harmful”, and that need not be the case.
As the Buddhists like to say: the reality we experience is the one our minds construct.
This is can be an extremely hard path, but is transformational if successful.
Shantideva: "You can't cover the whole world with leather to make it smooth, but you can wear sandals."
Shunryu Suzuki: “Each of you is perfect the way you are ... and you can use a little improvement.”