32 karmaJoined Feb 2023



    Thank you for sharing. 

    I wasn't aware that Open Philanthropy had a relationship disclosure policy. I wonder what other policies they have or had to prevent potential "favoritism" in their grantmaking.

    I agree with the second paragraph of this comment.

    Regarding the third paragraph,

    In this post, the poster writes "Therefore, I feel comfortable questioning these grants using burner accounts," which suggests in fact that they do have multiple burner accounts.

    In my specific case,

    1. I acknowledged in the post that I previously used a burner two years ago for whose password I did not save (due it being a burner) and therefore found myself logged out of. I would have used the same burner otherwise.
    2. I could flip this around and say that I don't have other active burners because fact that my next bullet-point in the post was "I'll do some of that now" with me proceeding to comment on recent grants in the same post under the same burner instead of making a different post with a different burner.
    3. The use of the plural term "burner accounts" is me talking about burner accounts in the abstract rather than me saying I have multiple burner accounts.
    1. I should have made this clearer. My claim (also informed other anecdotes that I should have shared) is that people are put on blacklists for trivial reasons (eg, I don't like what this person said, they seem too "woke", they spoke badly about a friend of mine one time) but camouflaged under someone having "weak epistemics" or not being "truth-seeking enough".
    2. I'm not sure as I haven't ever made a blacklist or seen other people's blacklists. A blacklist to me seems something that either has (1) no reason or (2) a very weak reason - maybe that's camouflaged in something else (perhaps in rationalist language as described in Point #1).

    I'm not describing this post as a response to the other post.

    I initially wrote at the top of this post that,

    I wanted to offer a different perspective on this post ...

    and I believe that this warranted a separate post. In no way was this meant to be a rebuttal of all the arguments made there. I apologise for the confusion.

    At the top of the post, I've now clarified that I'm offering a different perspective (to add to the public discourse) and that this made more sense to me as a post than a comment and NOT a rebuttal.

    I respect you for writing this comment. 

    This would be something I'd be uncomfortable writing under my name.