Comment Permalink

Most of this seems unrelated to my observation that evidence of weariness toward harshly criticizing people merely for their political beliefs does not provide much evidence of weariness for criticizing extremely powerful political people for their actions.

I think that's a valuable distinction, and important puzzle piece here. However, OP doesn't just talk about actions: "That these kind of attitudes can be found and not swiftly and roundly condemned by moderators..." (emphasis mine)

I'm thinking aloud in these comments, trying to put my finger on what bothered me (and, I suspect, would bother other people -- especially conservatives) about the OP, and where to draw the line.

Yes, I know what due process is. In a strict sense, it applies only to governmental actions. In a looser sense, it applies to actions by private organizations that are considering taking adverse action against people associated with it -- e.g., a private university which is considering disciplining a student, a homeowner's association which is considering fining a unitowner. I am not aware of its extension to citizens (or groups of citizens) who wish to criticize a senior government official, or to a social movement that wishes to express its disapproval of a prominent person and distance themselves from said person.

The title of OP is: The EA movement needs to be able to disown rogue "supporters", starting with Musk. So we're considering collective adverse action against a person who's been associated with us.

The key question appears to be the nature of EA. You seem to agree with me in the sense that if we were a "private association", due process would be appropriate. And I agree with you that if we were just a random group of citizens, due process would feel less necessary.

The problem is that we're something in between. You could call us a "community" -- a term that's also used to describe a university or a homeowner's assocation, which you acknowledge as venues where due process is appropriate.

You could also call us a "movement", but EA is not a political movement. It's a movement based on using reason and evidence to do the most good. In my view, hasty "disowning [of] rogue supporters" without due process would undermine core tenets related to reason and evidence.

The private interest of Elon Musk in not being criticized by EAs is exceedingly modest.

Note that we're not just talking about Musk here. OP wants us to clearly 'pick a side'. So the private interest of Musk supporters within EA sound implicated. Are they going to be fired? Deprived of funding? Forced to stay quiet? What would be sufficient to satisfy OP?

I think the expected value of additional safeguards is low -- he has made numerous troubling, divorced-from-reality, or erratic public statements and I am unaware of any dispute about whether the statements are his.

"Erroneous deprivation" seems far more likely to apply if you're incorrect about the nature of the statements, not the fact that Musk said them? This attitude is part of what I'm trying to push back against -- the implicit assumption that you don't need to worry about your own errors in judging the veracity of someone's statements. This is part of the mistake Musk is allegedly making, so let's not make it ourselves.

BTW, there seems to be a bit of a motte-and-bailey thing going on here, because you were previously emphasizing a focus on denouncing actions over denouncing beliefs, but now you're talking about "public statements". Denouncing someone for public statements feels more like denouncing them for their beliefs than denouncing them for their actions.

Finally, with the volume of problematic statements, and new ones coming out on a near-daily basis, the burden of adjudicating them all would be considerable for a relatively small social movement.

In my comment, I suggested you just focus on one or two particularly bad and particularly clear Musk actions. Again, you're a lawyer -- if someone has committed numerous crimes, it should be easy to convict them for just one of them. Imagine a prosecutor who said: "It's too burdensome to prosecute Joe because he's committed so many darn crimes. So due process shouldn't apply. Just toss him in prison." Can you see how I would find that reasoning suspicious?

Relatedly, one of the reasons we can hold the government to the dictates of due process is that we concurrently give it the powers needed to carry out its functions while providing more protections. EA cannot subpoena Musk to judge him, or force him to sit for depositions on pain of imprisonment. Nor can it seek funds from the public fisc for investigations.

Agreed. But I'm not asking for nearly as much due process from EA as I would ask for from the government, either. Maybe that wasn't clear. I'm asking for "CEA community health team"-level due process, as opposed to "US federal court"-level due process. It's OK if the process is improvised and imperfect. I just want there to be some sort of procedure, or at least a gesture towards a procedure, which can itself be critiqued and improved over time.

Inserting a reminder in case it wasn't already clear: I want to emphasize that my discussion is focused on collectively "disowning" Musk, not criticizing him in an individual capacity.

Some background on my thinking here is that I see modern society as suffering from a shortage of due process in general. Public shaming is a punishment which has, at times, been regulated. Social media has made public shaming far more accessible and severe as a vigilante action, while also greatly decreasing its implicit due process requirements (like "who would actually publish this?") I think this is a major "root cause" of political dysfunction in the US. Same way hunter-gatherer tribes would feud with each other in the absence of due process to adjudicate crimes, we're suffering from politically-tribal feuds due to vigilante public shaming actions. The legal tradition in the US has hundreds of years of history behind it, but I'm suggesting we think more in terms of building up from the absolute basics of a society that currently exists in a state of reputational anarchy -- starting with lightweight, rough-and-ready approaches such as Community Notes. This is an area where the US legal tradition can serve as a source of inspiration, but it also can't automatically be expected to apply.

US political dysfunction is implicated in multiple EA cause areas, so if my hypothesis is correct, this sort of institution-building could be a high-impact topic to think about. EA's Community Health Team has had some success addressing the sort of reputation warring which has destroyed other online communities and social movements. But we didn't catch SBF. I feel more small-scale prototyping is appropriate before eventually trying to fix problems at the nation scale.

The isolated demand for "due process" rigor

I think I would likely write similar comments in response to any post calling for the EA movement to disown someone. This isn't the first time I've called for greater institutional capacity along these lines.

...is somewhat ironic given Musk's habit of shooting from the hip with criticisms about others, including federal employees when he is a public official, employment reform is within the scope of his apparent job functions, and people are suffering concrete harm (loss of jobs and contracts) as a result of his official conduct on the topic. Further irony comes from the fact that he owns a major social media platform that is infamous for people offering uninformed hot takes. These factors do not affect how we should treat him, but the irony is palpable.

Some criminal vigilantes claim they're doing the right thing, and fail to offer their victims due process, yet the state offers these vigilantes due process anyways. I don't think this is particularly ironic. It seems like a fairly common situation. Due process is why we generally consider the government to be "the good guys", and vigilantes to be "the bad guys".

If you're living in anarchy, someone has to be the first to start doing due process, if you want to put an end to retribution-spiraling.

See in context

The EA movement needs to be able to disown rogue "supporters", starting with Musk

by drbrake

Feb 242 min read 21

8

CommunityBuilding effective altruismPolicyEffective altruism cultureEffective altruism in the mediaEffective altruism messagingOpinion

Frontpage

I have been an "EA 1.0" supporter for many years, but the difficulty this movement has had recently in distancing itself from public figures who are associated with it but act against its core tenets could be its undoing.^[1]

It's understandable that a grouping that has intellectual openness and a willingness to question taken-for-granted ethical shibboleths as core values would struggle with the need to exclude as well as reach out. If EA doesn't find a mechanism to deal speedily and unambiguously with those claiming to be supporters but espousing repugnant ideas or behaving in flagrantly unethical ways, there is a strong danger that the good ideas and approaches it has been championing will be tainted by association. The problems dealing with SBF should have been a clear warning but the response there was late and weak. And the problems are just getting worse.

The largest single "problem figure" I see is of course Elon Musk. His name comes up in connection with EA all too frequently. He may not formally say he is a follower but he has certainly at times said positive things about EA topics so some may reasonably link EA with him.^[2] He may be providing ongoing financial support and some of his views may be (at least formally) aligned with some mainstream EA thinking, but it should be abundantly clear to those speaking on behalf of EA's 'leadership' that his recent (and earlier) actions violate any reasonable definition of EA-compatible ethical behaviour.^[3]

A search for Elon Musk and Effective Altruism should find interviews to the effect "EA leaders say 'Musk is no Altruist'. If there has been such an attempt it has not been widely circulated.

Edit: ~~And if he is still giving money to official EA causes, it should be loudly and swiftly returned.~~ ^[4]

But he's only the loudest example - what horrified me and inspired me to post this is this recent posting on r/effectivealtruism. Finding one or two people prepared to suggest those interested in animal welfare should share Richard Hanania's content on the subject was a surprise. But in fact four people there (so far) - the majority of posters - seemed to think it unfair to shun him. One said he was, "A rare moderating influence for the current right given his politics (pro-immigration, pro-intellectualism/vaccines/cultivated meat/etc, anti-pissing off allies with pointless tariffs) and relationship with the center-left. On the other, he is definitely racist." Another said Hanania "believes in genetic racial differences. I suspect quite a few rationalists believe this as well, but are just polite enough to not say it out loud."

That these kind of attitudes can be found and not swiftly and roundly condemned by moderators of an unofficial but popular EA-associated forum is reason enough for me to back away from "official EA".

In these deeply troubling times, it is unfortunately necessary for the EA community to clearly 'pick a side'. Until it does, I can no longer call myself an EA adherent, something that deeply saddens me.

^{^}
Edited to make the introduction more clearly spell out my main argument.
^{^}
"Mr. Musk has not officially joined the movement but he and Mr. MacAskill have known each other since 2015, when they met at an effective altruism conference. Mr. Musk has also said on Twitter that Mr. MacAskill’s giving philosophy is similar to his own." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/business/effective-altruism-elon-musk.html
^{^}
I have been criticized for failing to provide justification for that statement. While there must be others with the time to provide a longer list of problematic actions, his assault on USAID alone should I think be sufficient? A good faith attempt to root out fraud and corruption would not require the intentional demolition of the entire organization, which has unambiguously been doing EA-aligned work, if not as effectively as it could do.

^{^}
I stand by the rest but I would like to retract this line as it was written in the heat of the moment and doesn't really reflect my core views on how to treat money and resources provided by those one disagrees with. Given the flawed world we live in, this position, appealing as it is emotionally, is practically impossible. Those who receive such funding however must be very careful to ensure that it does not "buy" their collaboration or their silence. Take Musk's money if it will do good work but the more the movement takes the more it has at the same time to call out the actions he has taken that run against its principles.

Show all footnotes

8 Reactions

More posts like this

Comments21

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 4:38 PM

Davidmanheim1mo26

This sort of disagreement and rejection has happened on the part of many prominent EA individuals, but EA is a movement without a single leader, which I think is a good thing. As such, the movement as a whole can disagree about politics and who is or is not acceptable, and does not coordinate to endorse or reject people. And that's healthy for a community with different political and social views - neither of which are definitive of the movement. (It's arguably even politically wise not to take sides in political fights that don't relate directly to any of the goals of EA.)

If that means you can't agree to be a part of a community that contains others who disagree about who they find objectionable, that's an unfortunate cost to being a diverse community.

titotal1mo7

I don't think it's "politically wise" to be associated with someone like Musk who is increasingly despised worldwide, especially among the educated, intelligent population that is EA's primary recruitment ground. This goes quintuple for agreed upon racists like Hanania.

Elon has directly attacked every value I hold dear, and has directly screwed over life-saving aid to the third world. He is an enemy of effective altruist principles, and I don't think we should be ashamed to loudly and openly say so.

Davidmanheim1mo11

I don't think it's "politically wise" to be associated with someone like Musk

This grossly misconstrues what I said.

Elon has directly attacked every value I hold dear, and has directly screwed over life-saving aid to the third world. He is an enemy of effective altruist principles, and I don't think we should be ashamed to loudly and openly say so.

I basically agree, personally, and think you missed my point.

Ebenezer Dukakis1mo11

Yougov estimates that in the US, Musk is more popular than Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Mark Zuckerberg, or Bill Gates:

https://today.yougov.com/ratings/politics/fame/public-figures/all

the educated, intelligent population that is EA's primary recruitment ground

One could argue that EA should be focused on influencing people leading the US government and people working on AI in Silicon Valley.

For better or for worse, I think both of those groups are very fed up with the practice of denouncing people for their political beliefs. (And both of those groups also include Elon Musk as an important member!)

I feel good about EAs writing detailed explainers meant to pass ideological turing tests and persuade people of specific important claims.

I feel bad about about EAs pressuring others to denounce people who seem obviously bad based on what they're seeing on social media. (You can find many views on social media about pretty much any topic.)

David T1mo13

I don't think it's necessary for EA to denounce Musk on the basis that apart from a vague endorsement of a book a few years back and some general comments on AI safety which run in the opposite direction to his actual actions, he doesn't seem to be associated with EA at all. (cf people like SBF needing "denouncements" because they were poster boys for it)

But I don't think the popularity stat you've put up there is particularly representative of his present popularity or the direction it's likely to trend in. More recent polls suggest he's incredibly unpopular in Europe, whilst in the US's more partisan environment his popularity clearly depends on party allegiance, but is still well underwater and less popular than USAID etc and also trending downwards.

Yes, people working in policy have to work with the polity they've got, not the one they want, but I suspect if you drew a Venn diagramm of "people who like Musk's cuts to US Aid, AI safety initiatives etc" and "people who are likely to be remotely supportive of EA there wouldn't be much overlap. I suspect many of the conservatives sympathetic to some of the things EA wants to do are the ones that think he has too much power and is taking the wrong approach...

Ebenezer Dukakis1mo11

Where was USAID mentioned in the PDF you linked?

people who are likely to be remotely supportive of EA

FYI, this post I linked was written by someone who also has an EA Forum account. (The post I linked is not exactly supportive of Musk, but it doesn't exactly align with the OP either.)

I suspect many of the conservatives sympathetic to some of the things EA wants to do are the ones that think he has too much power and is taking the wrong approach...

Perhaps, but I doubt they consider it obvious. They might read a detailed explainer meant to pass their ITT, but I suspect they would consider OP in its current form to be "woke cancel culture".

Geoffrey Miller is one of a small number of conservative EAs who posts about the importance of AI alignment. He seems neutral/positive on Musk:

https://xcancel.com/primalpoly/search?f=tweets&q=musk+OR+to%3Aelonmusk&since=2024-09-01&until=2025-03-01&near=

David T1mo10

Where was USAID mentioned in the PDF you linked?

My bad, I should have linked to this one

FWIW I agree with your point that people who are broadly neutral/sympathetic are more likely to be sympathetic to a broad explainer than a "denunciation".

But I worded my post quite carefully, it's "people who like Musk's cuts to US Aid and AI Safety" I don't think overlap with EA. I don't imagine either of the EA-affiliated people you linked to would object to EAs pointing out that Musk shutting down AI safety institutes might be the opposite of what he says he cares about. And I don't think people who think foreign aid is a big scam and AI should be unregulated are putative EAs (whether they trust Musk or not!)

I don't think a "denunciation" is needed, but I don't think avoiding criticising political figures because they're sensitive, powerful and have some public support is a way forward either.

Ebenezer Dukakis1mo6

I don't think avoiding criticising political figures because they're sensitive, powerful and have some public support is a way forward either.

This sounds right to me too. In general your points seem fair. Although I will note that skepticism towards foreign aid (as practiced by e.g. Givewell charity evaluators) seems rather compatible with EA in principle.

BTW, for a few reasons, I think it's better, by default, to criticize actions rather than individuals. (For example, I suspect that makes it easier psychologically for the individuals who committed those actions to change their behavior.) So I feel good about posts like this one criticizing PEPFAR cuts.

Ebenezer Dukakis1mo3

@Geoffrey Miller

Rasool1mo4

I don't think it's necessary for EA to denounce Musk on the basis that apart from a vague endorsement of a book a few years back and some general comments on AI safety which run in the opposite direction to his actual actions, he doesn't seem to be associated with EA at all

I think you are downplaying Musk's (historic) association with EA, he was a speaker at EA Global 2015, and donated at least $10m to FLI's AI safety research grants (both mentioned at this link)

David T1mo4

That's more than I thought, but it's also a decade ago when Elon had very different priorities, and I'm not sure that EA has any image problems associated with people thinking EAs basically want what Elon wants. (I don't think the Transgender Law Center needs to worry their name might be sullied by his donation to them in 2011 either!)

Jason1mo2

<<very fed up with the practice of denouncing people for their political beliefs.>>

Among other things, there's a major difference between merely holding political beliefs and one's actions as apparently one of the most currently influential people in the most powerful organization that has ever existed in history (i.e., the US government).

Ebenezer Dukakis1mo1

So the topic of discussion here is what will annoy people in Silicon Valley and people in the Trump administration. My mental model is the key annoying thing is when the ratio of social enforcement to scholarship / rational argument gets too high. "Pearl-clutching" hashtag activism feels performative and fundamentally un-serious. If an activist truly believed something was a serious and important matter, they would inform themselves deeply about it, understand the thinking of those who disagree, and set out to persuade others based on detailed factual arguments.

This is the intuition I get from observing e.g. JD Vance (relevant because he's both from SV, and in the Trump admin): https://xcancel.com/JDVance/with_replies

If you read the OP, it doesn't even really attempt to defend the thesis that Elon Musk is a bad EA. The OP wants to condemn, and maybe even condemn everyone who hasn't condemned, before there has even been a trial. You're a lawyer. Presumably you understand the importance of due process. Why wouldn't it be called for in the court of public opinion?

If this is important, do it right, with scholarship and steelmanning and all of that. (If you want to save time, try to focus on one or two very clearly bad things he did.) If it's not important, forget about it and move on to the next thing.

Jason1mo3

Most of this seems unrelated to my observation that evidence of weariness toward harshly criticizing people merely for their political beliefs does not provide much evidence of weariness for criticizing extremely powerful political people for their actions.

Yes, I know what due process is. In a strict sense, it applies only to governmental actions. In a looser sense, it applies to actions by private organizations that are considering taking adverse action against people associated with it -- e.g., a private university which is considering disciplining a student, a homeowner's association which is considering fining a unitowner. I am not aware of its extension to citizens (or groups of citizens) who wish to criticize a senior government official, or to a social movement that wishes to express its disapproval of a prominent person and distance themselves from said person. There would be far less speech if the so-called "court of public opinion" acted with the constraints of government action.

Even if due process did somehow apply, the classic case on the subject explains that "identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. " Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

The private interest of Elon Musk in not being criticized by EAs is exceedingly modest. I think the expected value of additional safeguards is low -- he has made numerous troubling, divorced-from-reality, or erratic public statements and I am unaware of any dispute about whether the statements are his. Finally, with the volume of problematic statements, and new ones coming out on a near-daily basis, the burden of adjudicating them all would be considerable for a relatively small social movement.

Relatedly, one of the reasons we can hold the government to the dictates of due process is that we concurrently give it the powers needed to carry out its functions while providing more protections. EA cannot subpoena Musk to judge him, or force him to sit for depositions on pain of imprisonment. Nor can it seek funds from the public fisc for investigations.

Indeed, the American constitutional tradition gives people like Musk less protection than you or I: he is a quintessential public figure for defamation purposes. Owing to his control of X, he has an ability to respond to criticism that is exceptional even in comparison to most public figures.

The isolated demand for "due process" rigor here is somewhat ironic given Musk's habit of shooting from the hip with criticisms about others, including federal employees when he is a public official, employment reform is within the scope of his apparent job functions, and people are suffering concrete harm (loss of jobs and contracts) as a result of his official conduct on the topic. Further irony comes from the fact that he owns a major social media platform that is infamous for people offering uninformed hot takes. These factors do not affect how we should treat him, but the irony is palpable.

There may be prudential reasons for treating Musk with kid gloves, or for not talking about him. "Due process" ain't it.

Ebenezer Dukakis1mo11

Most of this seems unrelated to my observation that evidence of weariness toward harshly criticizing people merely for their political beliefs does not provide much evidence of weariness for criticizing extremely powerful political people for their actions.

I'm thinking aloud in these comments, trying to put my finger on what bothered me (and, I suspect, would bother other people -- especially conservatives) about the OP, and where to draw the line.

Yes, I know what due process is. In a strict sense, it applies only to governmental actions. In a looser sense, it applies to actions by private organizations that are considering taking adverse action against people associated with it -- e.g., a private university which is considering disciplining a student, a homeowner's association which is considering fining a unitowner. I am not aware of its extension to citizens (or groups of citizens) who wish to criticize a senior government official, or to a social movement that wishes to express its disapproval of a prominent person and distance themselves from said person.

The title of OP is: The EA movement needs to be able to disown rogue "supporters", starting with Musk. So we're considering collective adverse action against a person who's been associated with us.

The private interest of Elon Musk in not being criticized by EAs is exceedingly modest.

I think the expected value of additional safeguards is low -- he has made numerous troubling, divorced-from-reality, or erratic public statements and I am unaware of any dispute about whether the statements are his.

Finally, with the volume of problematic statements, and new ones coming out on a near-daily basis, the burden of adjudicating them all would be considerable for a relatively small social movement.

Relatedly, one of the reasons we can hold the government to the dictates of due process is that we concurrently give it the powers needed to carry out its functions while providing more protections. EA cannot subpoena Musk to judge him, or force him to sit for depositions on pain of imprisonment. Nor can it seek funds from the public fisc for investigations.

Inserting a reminder in case it wasn't already clear: I want to emphasize that my discussion is focused on collectively "disowning" Musk, not criticizing him in an individual capacity.

The isolated demand for "due process" rigor

...is somewhat ironic given Musk's habit of shooting from the hip with criticisms about others, including federal employees when he is a public official, employment reform is within the scope of his apparent job functions, and people are suffering concrete harm (loss of jobs and contracts) as a result of his official conduct on the topic. Further irony comes from the fact that he owns a major social media platform that is infamous for people offering uninformed hot takes. These factors do not affect how we should treat him, but the irony is palpable.

If you're living in anarchy, someone has to be the first to start doing due process, if you want to put an end to retribution-spiraling.

drbrake1mo1

The EA movement has no single leader but communication and recruitment are of course vital to its continuation, so there are mechanisms for senior figures to make their views known. It is not necessary for the movement to "take sides" in particular political battles, but the fact that Musk has funded EA work, is friends with key EA figures and has taken actions (like the all-out attack on USAID) that run directly counter to mainstream EA thinking suggests to me EA needs to make its concerns clear.

If a public figure or organization (political or not) is aligned with the EA movement in the public mind (because of donations, common positions or their stated adherence to EA principles) and does things that are not consistent with EA values, the movement needs to condemn those actions.

Framing this as taking a political stand is misleading and misguided. I happen to oppose Musk's politics but that is not why I urge EA leadership to oppose him - it's the ethical lapses I expect EA to condemn. If a populist left wing leader in the US scrapped USAID because it was an instrument of American imperialism and the money was needed at home to fund social programming, I'd argue EA should condemn that in a similar manner.

Davidmanheim1mo4

Wait, did you want them to "denounce" the choice of shutting down USAID, or the individual?

Rían O'M 1mo21

And if he is still giving money to official EA causes, it should be loudly and swiftly returned.

In cases where a person has donated money they secured through crime, it seems right to reject it, but rejecting someone's money because one doesn't like their politics seems like a bad idea.

Suppose a hypothetical medicine-distribution charity that had been funded by Musk announced they would forgo accepting his future donations and would distribute fewer pills as a result. What exactly would this achieve? Maybe they would succeed in pleasing people who share their politics, but their beneficiaries (the very people they are supposed to help) would suffer.

I personally think it would be good if people who's politics I dislike donated more to EA causes.

drbrake1mo4

You are right - I wrote in anger and take that part back (have edited above).

JordanStone1mo9

I disagree with the suggestion but I upvoted as I think it is an important discussion to have on the forum. Especially with the Musk example, longtermism gets a lot of criticism for ideas that aren't associated with it (even in the space policy literature). But I agree with @Davidmanheim's comment. Thanks for making the post!

Davidmanheim1mo4

Seconded the point that it's a good discussion to have. Very closely related to my original point, I don't think downvoting this is helpful - it's good to have public discussion, even if I think the framing about "EA" denouncing things is confused.