Two riders were approaching

-13 karmaJoined Jan 2023


Yeah, I moved to 95% of "no governance action that would stop a high effort by Tegmark to execute this grant", after checking the website. 

(Sort of starting another thread here), based on my knowledge of how effective, reasonable boards function, I think there is a good chance there would be no governance you are describing for a number of reasons, and such governance when it occurs is usually performative. More subtly, this is not a defect, this is what should be done and how things are done in practice.

My guess is that this would have gone through (80%). In this case, having a strong singular founder and a billionaire donor increases the chances this goes through. Tegmark's other communications choices, add to my sense this (I don't have time to elaborate, they aren't severe, but suggest a low sense of discipline and a sense of personal esteem).

I could be wrong (contrary evidence that would change my mind would be past actions or an unusually strong board member).

I saw all of the comments in the state before commenter removed her post. 

There was a lot of women who responded in depth and consideration to the post. Altogether, this produced a pretty convincing response that did not make post look as favorable as I think the commenter wanted it.

I don't at all like EA rhetoric, which is highly defective, but the women there probably spent 100-woman hours of time writing all of their comments. By removing the post, the commenter silenced their views without answering or developing a response.

With a little generosity/trust in Expo's article and reading between the lines, it’s good to flag the squalid character of Tegmark’s choices:

  1. It seems hard not to guess that (>50%?) Tegmark rescinded his offer to the fascists, because Expo reached out and discovered it. 
  2. With more certainty, Tegmark probably distributed $100K in funds solely because of his brother and family, this is terrible for all sorts of reasons, and undermines and is dangerous for the longtermist funding environment and EA overall.
  3. The squalid, low integrity interactions, where Tegmark flat out lies when confronted, is then immediately caught, and then there's a wobbly game of back and forth between his board, and ultimately pays a lawyer—why? It's clownish, teenage-like.

This is important because, in a deep sense, the various side hustles and influencers currently entrenching themselves in the EA culture, can't be dislodged with this sort of behavior.

I'm a "long time" "animal welfare" "EA" and I'm confused by Jamie's thread here.

I agree that I think it's possible to co-opt and take credit, and this is bad.

I'm not sure this has happened here. I don't understand Jamie's purpose. I'm worried his comment is unnecessarily disagreeable.

It's good to have good people (EA) do good work on animal welfare. It's great if this list draws attention to work that we think EAs should support.