L

Larks

14156 karmaJoined

Comments
1352

Topic contributions
1

The entire article is about how he hates wokeness the most but recognizes that objectively there are other bigger problems; genocide is an example he mentions of an objectively worse problem. 

It almost seems rude to ask but... did you actually read the post you linked? It says the exact opposite of what you claim it does:

Deep down, I know wokeness is not the most important issue facing humanity.

...

Regardless, wokeness is probably not as important as, for example, advancing anti-aging research. 

...
Of all the things that can motivate me, why did I pick a stupid gesture that has close to zero direct impact on human flourishing and wellbeing?

...

From my perspective, wokeness is very important, I have something new and original to say about it, and the topic inspires me like practically nothing else. But again, I know it’s nowhere near the most important issue I could be focusing on.

This seems at best quite negligent of you - to assume a person is saying something bad just because you dislike them. At worst it seems like you were hoping people would just take your word for it and not actually click the link.

If that is the case then the post seems shockingly disingenuous, even within the category of 'denounce people for tolerating controversial people' posts. It really seems like the OP was trying to let readers assume that the speakers' strong opinions in question were pro-holocaust or pro-holocaust denial, especially given the post was also calling them racist. If those strong opinions were actually included their opposition to the genocide ... well, what would the OP prefer? Speakers with mixed and equivocal views on the holocaust?

These statements seem at least generally consistent with the complaint at first glance. Could someone point out where they are not?

Sure, they hedged in some places. But the literal title just states it outright:

Sam Bankman-Fried funded a group with racist ties.

Now I know people often say that writers do not choose their titles. But the Guardian as a newspaper did, so I think they can fairly be criticized for it, and somehow I doubt the author registered any objection to the title.

Nor did the article in any way alert the reader, likely less knowledgeable about bankruptcy procedures than you, about the potential fallibility of bankruptcy complaints, or the strategic issues involved. Even after the corrections made to the article, they wait until the 10th paragraph to mention the fact Habryka denies it, and not until the 50th paragraph do we learn that he presented evidence the allegations are false.

Larks
28
13
1

To me that actually seems like an argument against self-identification as a criteria. 

I think the underlying idea is a good idea, but I'm pretty pessimistic about actual implementation. My impression is that presidential administrations of both flavours attempt to expand executive power, and "if we do this it might be abused by the other side" arguments have generally not been effective. For example, when I look at recent SCOTUS cases the current administration has generally sided with expanding government/executive power every time (e.g. Chevron, censorship, firearms, debt modification). I'm not sure if this is due to myopia or being much less concerned about future authoritarianism than people often claim.

Unrelatedly, I'm not sure why this post is tagged 'community' as it is not really about the EA community.

In a new interview Trump again brought up the risk of artificial intelligence, discussed the connection to nuclear risks, and mentioned that some people think it will take over the human race.

I think the issue isn't so much a constant -10%, but that some specific life-saving interventions might saves lives yet leave people with unusually low quality of life, and for those interventions the error term might be much larger than 10%.

Answer by Larks9
2
0

In 2021-2022 GiveWell rolled over funds into the next year because they felt that the top charities had enough. They've said they no longer do this but it suggests to me that they tend to be in the ballpark of fully-funded.

I think I would draw the opposite conclusion from this specific piece of evidence - it suggests that, unlike most charities, they're willing to say "yeah we got enough for now", so we should infer that when they don't say this they actually could use some more.

Answer by Larks12
2
0
2

You might find helpful the existing discussion on the topic that you can find with the tag here, which I also added to this post.

Load more