All of Daystar Eld's Comments + Replies

It sounds like what you would be more convinced by is a short, precise refutation of the exact things said by the original post.

But I feel the opposite. That to me would have felt corporate, and also is likely impossible given the way the original allegations are such a blend of verified factual assertions, combined with some things that are technically true but misleading, may be true but are hearsay, and some things that do seem directly false.

Rather than "retaliatory and unkind," my main takeaway from the post was something like "passive-aggressive bene... (read more)

I care about the strict facts and I want to know how to contextualize the things that there's no way for them to refute by simple "no we didn't."

While I agree that these are both helpful, I would have been most excited to see a clear separation between careful direct refutations ("here are several clear examples where Ben's post contained demonstrably false claims") and fuzzier context ("here is an explanation why this specific claim from Ben's post, while arguably literally true, is pretty misleading").

(But this is hard!)

I agree, and find the ratio of agree/disagreement on your comment really disheartening in terms of what lesson this community has learned from all this. 

I get that people find it too "retaliatory" and bad-faith. Maybe it would have been cleaner if it wasn't about Ben, though I don't think a hypothetical person would have made the lesson as clear, and if Ben wasn't fair game for having written that article, I don't know who would be. Unless people believe Kat is just making up accusations entirely, they must believe those accusations deserve just as mu... (read more)

Maybe it would have been cleaner if it wasn't about Ben, though I don't think a hypothetical person would have made the lesson as clear, and if Ben wasn't fair game for having written that article, I don't know who would be.

Thanks! This line in particular changed my mind about whether it was retributive, I genuinely can't think of anyone else it would be appropriate to do this for

I feel like I'm confused by what you would find more convincing here given that there was no evidence in the first place that they did say something like that?

Like would them saying "No we didn't" actually be more persuasive than showing an example of how they did the opposite?

Or like... if we take for granted that words that someone might interpret that way left their mouth, at what point do we stop default trusting the person who clearly feels aggrieved by them and seems willing to exaggerate or lie when they then share those words to others?

There are pl... (read more)

I feel like I'm confused by what you would find more convincing here given that there was no evidence in the first place that they did say something like that?

Like would them saying "No we didn't" actually be more persuasive than showing an example of how they did the opposite?

Or like... if we take for granted that words that someone might interpret that way left their mouth, at what point do we stop default trusting the person who clearly feels aggrieved by them and seems willing to exaggerate or lie when they then share those words to others?

I'm not sure... (read more)

It at least allows people who now trust them again to choose to work with them and have things to point to as to why.

FWIW I think I don't care how much money she actually made. I care how much money she said she made to NL, and how much she told Ben that she told NL she was making.

If she insinuated high to NL to get the job and then did not own up to that when talking to Ben, that is very hard for me to forgive. Even setting aside the idea that NL might not have hired her in the first place if she accurately represented both her skills and her financial dependence, thus avoiding this whole mess in the first place... it basically treated Ben as an arrow to be fired at peo... (read more)

I agree in principle with the things you're saying here. I disagree with these particulars because I disagree that the photos are poor evidence of anything relevant. The only issue at play here is NOT whether NL was abusive, or else I would agree with you.

To be more specific, the photos provide evidence of a unique kind for things like "was this job the kind of job that it's reasonable to sell as ~$75k in compensation."

Again, this can be true in addition to it ending up being an abusive environment. But when the discourse around this topic also includes th... (read more)

While I agree that this would largely have been an effective rebuttal that prevented many people from having the vibes-based reactions they're having, I think it itself excludes a thing I find rather valuable from this post... namely, that the thing that happened here is one that the community (and indeed most if not all communities) did not handle well and I think are overall unprepared for handling in future circumstances.

Open to hearing ways that point could have been made in a different way, but your post still treats this all as "someone said untrue things about us, here's the evidence they were untrue and our mistakes," and I think more mistakes were made beyond just NL or Alice/Chloe.

I feel like this response ignores my central points ― my sense that Kat misrepresented/strawmanned the positions of Chloe/Alice/Ben and overall didn't respond appropriately.

And I disagree, and used one example to point out why the response is not (to me) a misrepresentation or strawman of their positions, but rather treating them as mostly a collection of vague insinuations peppered with specific accusations that NL can only really respond to by presenting all the ways they possibly can how the relationship they're asserting is not supported by whatever ev... (read more)

6
DPiepgrass
4mo
I expect them to say "advised". This isn't Twitter, and even on Twitter I myself use direct quotes as much as possible despite the increased length, for accuracy's sake. Much of this situation was "(s)he said / she said" where a lot of the claims were about events that were never recorded. So how do we make judgements, then? Partly we rely on the reputations of everyone involved―but in the beginning Kat and Ben had good reputations while (after Ben's post) Alice & Chloe were anonymous, with only Chloe appearing to have a good reputation. So what then? Well, the community verifies what it can. The miswordings were verifiable. It reminds me of a weird final exam I once took, which was worth something like 2/3 of my total grade and had 10 questions. 9 were about material that wasn't taught in the class at all! So I answered about 1.3 of the 10, and... got a B+ in the course! How?? Presumably the instructors realized they made a mistake afterward and couldn't just fail everyone, so they graded people based on that one question and a few quizzes. That's kind of like this. When much of the story is invisible to us, we judge based on what's visible. How can we do otherwise? So Kat could've taken advantage of that by posting an impeccable defense that functionally countered the original narrative. They suggested K&E lacked honesty? Well, Kat could demonstrate perfect honesty in all verifiable respects. They suggested K&E were retributive? Kat could've conveyed a strong sense of kindness. The fact that she didn't do these things reads as her "real" personality showing. "A leopard can't change its spots." Sorry, it's just that in the past I've talked to lots of climate dismissives and I've become sensitive to their many tactics even in unrelated situations. One of them is misquoting.

While I disagree that the photos are hijacking "our" irrationality, I could be persuaded that the photos are harmful toward some people's, maybe even most people's, general epistemics around issues like this. But the solution to that seems to me to be people working on improving how their epistemics work, not asking for less evidence to avoid becoming confused?

To me the photos are evidence of a particular, specific set of things. Whether anyone "disputed" those things is irrelevant to me; I have more information than I did without them, and also the photos... (read more)

8
lilly
4mo
This is just a weird way to think about evidence, imo. I think the original post would’ve been more useful and persuasive (and generated better discourse) if it had been 1/5th as long. Throwing evidence—even high-quality evidence—at people does not always make them reason better, and often makes them reason worse. (I also don’t think it works here to say “just have better epistemics!” because (a) one important sense in which we’re all boundedly rational is that our ability to process information well decreases as the volume of information increases and (b) a writer acting in good faith—who wants you to reach the right conclusions—should account for this in how they present information.) Critically, as previously stated, I think the photos constitute particularly poor evidence—they have a very low “provides useful information:how likely are they to sway people in ways that are irrational” ratio. This is why my comment wasn’t just “shorten your post so people can understand it better,” but rather “I think these photos will lead to vibes-based reasoning.” (This is also why prosecutors etc etc use this kind of evidence; it’s meant to make the jury think “aw they look so happy together! He couldn’t have possibly done that,” when in reality, the photo of the smiling couple on vacation has ~0 bearing on whether he murdered her.)

"My own suspicion is that everyone, even Nonlinear, would have been better off if Nonlinear had just let this lie and instead gone about earning trust by doing good work with normal working relationships."

I think I'm not sure this is actually possible without having addressed the original claims. The overriding take I felt from the community after Ben's post was that they were in exile limbo until their side of the story was shared.

4
Muireall
4mo
Isn't Emerson independently wealthy and Nonlinear mostly self-funded? It's not totally clear to me how that limbo keeps them from getting things done. I guess I don't fully understand what Nonlinear does—I suppose they "incubate" projects, mostly remotely helping with mentoring and networking? I find the idea a little bewildering together with how they describe their activities, but being on the outs with the EA/AI safety community would be a pretty central obstacle. So that's fair and I was probably venting a bit intemperately. I think something like what Stephen Clare outlines is probably better.

I know this is probably a frustrating thing for others to read, but seems worth saying anyway... since making the above comment I've had private information shared with me that makes me more confident NL didn't act in an abusive way regarding this particular issue.

Edited above comment to clarify:

By "hold up" I meant in the emotional takeaway of "NL was abusive," to be clear, not on the factual "these bank account numbers changed in these ways." To me hiring someone who turns out to be financially dependent into a position like this is unwise, not abusive. If someone ends up in the financial red in a situation where they are having their living costs covered and being paid a $1k monthly stipend... I am not rushing to pass judgement on them, I am just noting that this seems like a bad fit for this sort of position, wh... (read more)

I agree that asking employees to commit illegal acts they wouldn't normally commit is bad. I qualify it like that be because I've known many people who casually break the law in many ways on "victimless crimes" like smoking pot (particularly before it became largely legalized) or getting prescription medicine from others, and I think rationalists/EAs are not unique compared to base rates in skirting laws like this.

Unless the accusers are the sorts of people who don't, like me, then it would make sense to me if they were asked to do something that seemed in line with their normal behavior. But this is speculation on my part, and I agree that pressuring them in any case would be wrong.

6
Ben Plaut
4mo
Yeah I see your point. I think I personally have a stronger aversion to illegal requests from employers as a matter of a principle, even if the employee does that sort of thing anyway. But I can see how other people might view that differently. That said, in this particular case, it doesn't seem like Chloe would otherwise be illegally buying weed?

Agree that my epistemic state on this point is also something close to this.

Summarized would be "something like asking her to bring the drugs probably happened, and if so was a mistake that I'd hope was learned from, but the major issue would be if she was pressured to do it, and I'm unsure if I trust the person reporting enough to decide either way without evidence."

[Edit: I know this is probably a frustrating thing for others to read, but seems worth saying anyway... since making the above comment I've had private information shared with me that makes me more confident NL didn't act in an abusive way regarding this particular issue.]

I think I'm confused by the claim that the written evidence without the picture evidence would be better than the written + pictures.

To me the photos are only manipulative if they are on their own.

If someone chooses not to read the evidence and only focus on the pictures, then feels manipulated by that...

I don't really know what to say to that. I am confused by how this is in any way NL's fault, and why it should imply that less evidence overall would be better.

7
lilly
4mo
I think that if we were all completely rational, you’d be right. But we’re not, and I think the photos were included in an attempt to exploit that fact. If the post just argued “there were s’mores and iguanas; Chloe and Alice must be lying about how bad their experience was!” my brain would go “that argument sucks; obviously people can be unhappy in a land of iguanas.” But the photos hijack my reasoning by conjuring a vivid image of a tropical paradise (brain: “hm, this looks pretty nice! It’s cold here and I wish I was there right now! Maybe this was an awesome job.”) The reason this is bad is because the photos don’t tell us anything relevant that we didn’t already know; we knew they were hanging out in tropical places and the presence of s’mores has zero bearing on the veracity of Chloe and Alice’s claims. No one ever disputed whether there were s’mores and there having been s’mores is entirely compatible with this job having been a nightmare. The pictures just undermine my ability to immediately recognize that fact.

I agree that this would be a good thing to get clarity on as well, though I think it's a very dangerous thing to ask people to verify in a public setting? We could take for granted that it's true if they don't explicitly deny it, but the issue might matter more or less to different people if it was simply an ask vs if there was pressure to do it.

Personally my take is something like "It would be bad to pressure people to do this if they don't want to. It would be the kind of mistake I hope someone would learn from if they made it. It affects some level of h... (read more)

2
Ben Plaut
4mo
You make a fair point about the risk of admitting to such activities in a public setting. Although, if the statement is not true, there would be no risk in denying it, right? I'm hesitant to assume something is true in the absence of a denial, but I wanted to at least give Nonlinear an opportunity to deny it. This will vary between readers, but I personally find this more cruxy than perhaps you do. In my opinion: asking an employee to commit illegal acts, even with minimal social pressure, especially in a foreign country, especially if it happened multiple times, is a very serious concern. I can imagine extreme instances where it could be justified, but it doesn't seem like that applies to this situation. I am also hoping that the accuracy of the weed allegation is much less ambiguous than some of the harder-to-pin down abuse claims (even if those might be worse in sum total if they were all true).

My read on this is that a lot of the things in Ben's post are very between-the-lines rather than outright stated. For example, the financial issues all basically only matter if we take for granted that the employees were tricked or manipulated into accepting lower compensation than they wanted, or were put in financial hardship.

Which is very different from the situation Kat's post seems to show. Like... I don't really think any of the financial points made in the first one hold up, and without those, what's left? A She-Said-She-Said about what they were as... (read more)

I feel like this response ignores my central points ― my sense that Kat misrepresented/strawmanned the positions of Chloe/Alice/Ben and overall didn't respond appropriately. These points would still be relevant even in a hypothetical disagreement where there was no financial relationship between the parties.

I agree that Ben leaves an impression that abuse took place. I am unsure on that point; it could have been mainly a "clash of personalities" rather than "abuse". Regardless, I am persuaded (partly based on this post) that Kat & Emerson have personal... (read more)

2
Habryka
4mo
Which financial claims seem to you like they have been debunked? When I read through the summary of the financial situation in Ben's original post, the content seems to hold up quite well:  If you think these claims have been debunked, can you say where and in which way they are wrong?  There is one small thing in here that Nonlinear dispute, but do not provide hard evidence for, which is that her outstanding salary/reimbursements were paid back this quickly in part due to her strongly requesting it. I currently still believe this is true, though of course Nonlinear disputing it is some evidence.  However, I don't see any evidence against any of the other claims in these two paragraphs. This still seems like a quite good summary of the situation. Edit: I think Jeff below makes a valid point that it matters a good amount whether the late payment was for "salary" or "reimbursement" and I would consider the claim that it was reimbursement instead of salary a relatively direct contradiction with the relevant sentence.

It feels really cruxy to me whether you or Ben received any actual evidence of whether Alice or Chloe had lied or misrepresented anything in that 1 week.

Because to me the actual thing I felt from reading the original post's "Response from Nonlinear" was largely them engaging in some kind of justification or alternative narrative for the overall practices of Nonlinear... but I didn't care about that, and honestly it felt like it kind of did worse for them because it almost seemed like they were deflecting from the actual claims of abuse.

To me, if you receiv... (read more)

8
Habryka
4mo
Ben had a call with Kat in which they disputed lots of things, which indeed Ben summarized in the final post and included. I don't think there was anything substantial that Ben knew that didn't make it into the post when the post was written. I did not (and continue not to) take Kat and Emerson's character judgement of Chloe and Alice at face value, and I don't think them claiming that things were inaccurate was appropriate reason to delay publication (I think in basically all of my hypotheses they would claim that, so it's really very little bayesian evidence). Ben summarized his epistemic state on the trustworthiness of various parties reasonably well in the post:  Ben was really extremely exceptionally transparent about his epistemic state in this situation, including in the trustworthiness of the reports. So you can judge for yourself whether publishing given that epistemic state was reasonable (with the alternative I think not really being a delay, but likely substantial retaliation towards our sources, and us running out of time we had budgeted for this project, which I think should be treated as a high-likelihood of the original post never being published at all)

Just finishing up the post now, sorry for the delay! I've been gathering and double-checking permissions :)

Hoping to announce by the end of the month :) It'll be its own top level post.

2
duckypie
6mo
Any update on the timeline? Thank you!

Ah yeah the September 1 deadline was meant for the writing retreat, the overall deadline is Oct 1st.

Yeah, I think it is actually incredibly easy to undervalue CH, particularly if people don't regularly interact with it or make use of them rather than just having a single anecdata to go off of. So much of what I do in the community (everything from therapy to mediation to teaching at the camps) is made easier by Community Health, and no one knows about any of it because why would they? I guess I should make a post to highlight this.

Thanks for this writeup, still undergoing various updates based on the info above and responses from Nonlinear.

One thing I do want to comment on is this:

(Personal aside: Regarding the texts from Kat Woods shown above — I have to say, if you want to be allies with me, you must not write texts like these. A lot of bad behavior can be learned from, fixed, and forgiven, but if you take actions to prevent me from being able to learn that the bad behavior is even going on, then I have to always be worried that something far worse is happening that I’m not aware

... (read more)
1
philgoetz
8mo
Thank you.  I should have checked this 7 hours ago!  But probably I wouldn't have finished if I had.

Thanks for your submission! There have been a few others already, but so far they've all been through DMs.

1
dr_s
9mo
Oh, I didn't remember that was an option - do you mind if I do that too? Since it's a Google Docs link I'd appreciate the added privacy.

Yes, we've definitely talked about collecting fiction that already exists and is still relevant to the modern understanding of the issues involved. That's why I'm happy for people to submit existing stories as well, and one thing we've discussed is possibly reaching out to authors of such stories or whoever holds their rights to interweave them with new stories if we try to publish in a traditional anthology.

Same with turning fables into videos; we're pretty confident that if we get a few good stories out of this, turning them into animations or short audiobooks will be worth doing :)

Absolutely. Part of the hope is that, if we can gather a good collection of stories, we can find ways to promote and publish some or all of them, whether through traditional publishing or audiobooks or youtube animated stories.

I don't think these visions are mutually exclusive: there are ways to portray positive visions of the future while still teaching something real about the way AI can actually work or the risks that were solved along the way.

Thanks for the writeup! I haven't read either of your stories yet (there are far too many these days for me to keep up with alongside writing my own) but I'm wondering if you participate in the /r/rational subreddit or discord community at all?  A sense of community and people to talk to about the story/get more engaged feedback on questions/struggles etc you have might be helpful (sorry if this seems basic, I don't recognize your username or the story names from there but I may have missed them).

I would like to request people share their models for what mechanisms or laws might actually allow this sort of thing to happen.

So far as I know from only basic research, clawbacks are the result of things like tax miscalculations, contract effects (excess profit made that then has to be divided as agreed upon), insurance fraud, etc. Unless a contract was signed or criminal connection is suspected, it seems highly unlikely to me.

Thanks to both of you for writing this! Very valuable resource to have on hand, and a great review of different aspects of therapeutic modes of thought/self-help processes.

Great breakdown of the skills and concrete steps,  thanks for writing this! I can already tell I'll be linking people to this fairly often :)

I've been speaking to a number of people in university organizing groups who have been aware of these issues, and almost across the board the major issue they feel is that it seems too conflict-generating/bad/guilt-inducing to essentially tell their friends and peers in their or other universities something like "Hey, I think the thing you're doing is actually causing a lot of harm, actually."

I would be very in favor of helping find ways to facilitate better communication between these groups that specifically targets ways they can improve in non-blaming, pro-social and supportive ways.

This is an enormously valuable project, thank you and the others so much for continuing to work on making sure it can meet the community's needs!

Gavin covers the rest of it, so to talk about the "parts" thing; in this context I'm using it more as a semantic handle on what it means to have internal conflict, and not explicitly as an IFS thing. Psychotherapists have been talking about individuals as being made up of "parts" from the very beginning (Freud's Id, Ego, Superego) and  with all due respect to our mutual CFAR friend, if there's any other way to describe and interface with the experience of internal conflict as well, I have yet to hear it :) 

In other words, I've written "a signal f... (read more)

4
ChanaMessinger
2y
The thing about parts not being necessarily about IFS specifically should have occurred to me, thank you!

Agreed, more public figures of people who found something meaningful and impactful that wasn't what they initially thought they would/should work on would help with that :)

This is great to hear and an interesting read, thank you for sharing!

Ah, yeah that wasn't intended as my meaning. Will edit :)

Hey, thanks for the comment! Just to clarify because I may be too sleep deprived to track what you're saying... I originally read that as proportional by percent but not by absolute numbers, right?  

So if roughly 900 new people per year are considered engaged enough to count as part of the community, ~20% of that and ~20% of 650 would still leave a growing number of people in the community working EA jobs, and even ~30% or ~40% increase in jobs would still leave a growing absolute number of people in the community not working EA jobs.

(Again, not to say that this is bad necessarily, and as you noted there's also people who were funded by grants or doing research or similar)

6
Benjamin_Todd
3y
Yes, my figures were proportional rather than absolute. I was mainly responding to: This sounds like a proportional claim to me. My take is they're growing at the same or faster pace as the overall EA population. It's true that if they both grow the same proportionally, the absolute number of people not able to get jobs will grow. It's less obvious to me something is 'going wrong' if they both grow at the same rate, though it's true that the bigger the community, the more important it is to think about culture.

Yeah, this seems a hard problem to do well and safely from an organizational standpoint. I'm very sympathetic to the idea that it is an onerous cost on the organization's side; what I'm uncertain about is whether it ends up being more beneficial to the community on net.

It's been an ongoing discussion at SPARC and ESPR to try to decide how much or how little exposure to EA (as opposed to "EA ideas") we want to make explicit during the camps. So far the answer has been mostly "fairly little," and of course we do focus quite a lot on frank conversations about the ups and downsides. But it's definitely difficult to pass down wisdom rather than just knowledge, and some of the questions have no genuine or easy answer. Thinking on this is certainly something that keeps me up at night every so often.

There's a subreddit called /r/rational which discusses and shares "rational" and "rationalist" fiction. Many of these include EA themes, both explicitly and implicitly. 
 

Some I'd recommend along with the ones others here have already shared include Worth the Candle, an original fiction about a teenager who gets transported into a fantasy world of his own creation and has to overcome personal challenges like grief and societal ones like complex coordination problems, Animorphs: The Reckoning, a fanfic that re-imagines the alien-body-snatchers stor... (read more)

Load more