After considering this comment and the relationship between Open Philanthropy and the rest of the EA ecosystem more, I'm reconsidering my position about Open Phil's responsibility for EA's relationships with FTX to one of much greater uncertainty.
I agree with the first but not the second
One way the error 4 matters, besides what I said preemptively, is that it means none of the cites in the paper can be trusted without checking them.
FWIW I generally take this to be the case; unless I have strong prior evidence that someone's citations are consistently to a high standard, I don't assume their citations can be easily trusted, at least not for important things.
I don't think the preemptive stuff you said is too important because I think people make mistakes all the time and I was more interested in the fundamental arguments outlined and evaluating them for myself.
The publishability of research on effective altruism (philosophers are now more sceptical about it).
What makes you say this? Anything public you can point to?
You say you're happy to hear counter-arguments, but it sounds very much like you've made up your mind.
FWIW I think there's no inherent tension here and it's a healthy attitude. One needs to make up one's mind, and saying (and acting) like you're happy to hear counter-arguments after that is very good.
Edited to add: I'm not making or implying any comments on the wider discussion, just this narrow point.
Thanks!I'm choosing not to debate.
If I'm reading your rules correctly, I'm still allowed to state if I consider some errors unimportant, with or without giving reasons.
I think error 4 is unimportant because the point is about bottlenecks and it stands without the last two words as you said.
If you've written anything against the singularity hypothesis, I would be curious to read it.
Hi Elliot, this is just a quick reply.
Would you like to have a serious conversation or debate with me about another topic, or not at all?
I'm not currently interested in participating in the sort of debate you mean, sorry. For what it's worth though, I consider our exchanges to have been serious albeit brief and unstructured.
80K promoted SBF uncritically to a large audience and highlighted him as a positive example for years (while also being well placed to know about the 2018 Alameda blowup) so I think it's fair to say that they have some non-zero level of responsibility in the EA-SBF connection and promotion.
Also, generally, more of the "very senior and trusted EAs" seem to be at Open Philanthropy.
Open Philanthropy has been in charge of funding (including groups like CEA), so they generally seem like the most high-up and ultimately responsible org. The relationship with FTX was about as large a project as we had in EA, so I assumed the institution with the most power and authority was handling or overseeing it to some extent.
I see. Thanks for sharing. I think it's good to find out what expectations people had of different actors.
My expectations were that Open Phil is a family foundation with very large overlaps with the EA community and its interests including funding some parts of it, but it's not fundamentally an actor with responsibility over the EA community's decision making, especially nebulous and complex things like EA's connections with a different billionaire. A lot of people the EA community considers leaders are at Open Phil, but I consider that pretty different from Open Philanthropy as an organization having responsibility for EA decision making. I'm not sure what, if anything, it should have done differently in this case.
lol I laughed
I had previously assumed that Open Philanthropy had responsibility for overseeing much of the SBF-EA connection and promotion.
Why did you assume this? Serious question. I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that Open Phil doesn't consider itself responsible for overseeing the EA community.
To me some of the actors who seem like they should have had relevant responsibility here are CEA, 80K, and senior staff at the FTX Future Fund before they joined it.