All of Will Bradshaw's Comments + Replies

Thanks Claire! Are you able to point to some newer opportunities you think are especially promising?

Assuming we're only talking about the post Richard linked (and the user's one recent comment, which is similar), I agree with this.

I didn't say a lot of arms. 😛

But it's a fair point. Of course, in the absence of testing moderna could have ramped up production much faster. But I'm not sure they would have even if they were allowed to - that's a pretty huge reputational risk.

I think the two-day meme is badly misleading. Having a candidate vaccine sequence on a computer is very different from "having the vaccine".

It looks like Moderna shipped its first trial doses to NIH in late February, more than a month later. I think that's the earliest reasonable date you could claim that "we had the vaccine". If you were willing to start putting doses in arms without any safety or efficacy testing at all, that's when you could start.

(Of course, if you did that you'd presumably also have done it with all the vaccine candidates that didn't work out, of which there's no shortage.)

6
JoshuaBlake
I think even this is pretty optimistic because there was very little manufacturing capacity at that point.
2
Richard Y Chappell🔸
Fair point - updated accordingly. (The core point remains.)

I think you're probably wrong, but I hope you're right.

I'm not sure which, but in one of Will's 80k podcast interviews he discusses the origins of EA and mentions Yudkowsky and LessWrong as one of three key strands (as well as the GWWC crew in Oxford and Holden/GiveWell).

https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/will-macaskill-moral-philosophy/

Robert Wiblin: We’re going to dive into your philosophical views, how you’d like to see effective altruism change, life as an academic, and what you’re researching now. First, how did effective altruism get started in the first place?

Will MacAskill: Effective altruism as a community is really the confluence of 3 different movements. One was Give Well, co-founded by Elie Hassenfeld and Holden Karnofsky. Second was Less Wrong, primarily based in the bay area. The third is the co-founding... (read more)

I saw it when it first went up and it was nonymous, though I don't remember what the user name was.

It wasn't anonymous when the post went up, but it became so when the user deactivated their account.

8
Mjreard
Is that just from the tooltip? I'm not sure how anonymous posting works. It'd be interesting to learn who the author was if they didn't intend to be anonymous and if it was anyone readers would know.

Fair enough re the link!

Cigarettes are called fags in the UK and other commonwealth countries, yeah. I don't think it has any direct connection to the slur.

I'm not aware of "fag" being a common term of endearment among Australians the way "cunt" is, though I might be wrong about that. I think it and "cunt" are in pretty different categories as far as obscene words go, at least in commonwealth countries.

3
Habryka [Deactivated]
I briefly googled it and it seems at least somewhat common: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-Australian-men-like-to-use-faggot Also, I guess Australian's call cigarettes "fags" which I think guess is some evidence of the word being used more casually. Not confident of this though, I've never been to Australia.

Sorry, this isn't a very strong analogy.

Hanania doesn't criticise anything specific about the bills directly or offer a clear thesis for why they led to a rise in crime. There's no analogy to clubbing seals here. The strong implication imo is that giving more freedom to black people itself led to bad things happening because black people (according to Hanania) have a bad culture. Which is a different and much more offensive (to many) thesis.

(I agree that this is then used as a segue to a pretty insightful and biting critique of conservatives, which is the ... (read more)

Yes, I agree it's used not-that-rarely within the gay community. This is very similar to the n-word situation, and I don't think is very material to whether it's a slur or not.

If a gay person called me a fag, I'd update that they were more edgy than me. If a straight person called me a fag, I'd update that they were a bigot (and/or very socially inept and in need of a talking to).

"fag" feels weirder to me, though I still wouldn't describe it as a slur

Wait what? I can't think of many words that would be more central examples of slurs than that.

I am gay. At this point it’s a term of endearment. If someone called me a fag in an unfriendly way I’d just be a bit baffled. Of course, this is just me.

1
RobertJMoore
It's a famously "reclaimed" slur: Dan Savage used it positively for decades. But there is some dispute- in particular, it seems that many older gay men still have a strongly negative view of it, whereas younger crowds seem generally more accepting. As a Millennial, but not really in "the community," I still find it off-putting when it's used positively.  I've heard that there's some queer vs gay tension as well that people that ID as queer are turning "fag" back into a slur, but I have no clue to what extent this is an actual phenomenon instead of outrage-bait.
-21
Habryka [Deactivated]

Well said; this was my impression as well.

I think you might be using "truth-seeking" a bit differently here from how I and others use it, which might be underlying the disagree-votes you're getting. In particular, I think you might be using "truth-seeking" to refer to an activity (engaging in a particular kind of discourse) rather than an attitude or value, whereas I think it's more typically used to refer to the latter.

I think it's very important to the EA endeavor to adopt a truth-seeking mindset about roughly everything, including (and in some cases especially) about hot-button political issues... (read more)

4
Benevolent_Rain
Hi Will, thanks for the comment. I agree 100% that it is very good for people to even look at hot button topics but keep such explorations offline. Perhaps something I should have clarified above, and in danger of being perceived as speaking on behalf of others which is not my intention (instead I am trying to think of the least harmful example here): I was thinking that if I was someone really passionate about global health and doing it right, and coming from a strong Christian background, I might feel alienated from EA if it was required of me to frequently challenge my Christian faith.  So I think I was talking in terms of an attitude or  value. For the above example of a Christian EA, and using another example of an atheist or at least agnostic EA who is super truth-seeking across the board, I could see the latter using this post to come to the conclusion that the Christian EA is not really EA as that person refuses to dive deep into the epistemics of their religious belief. This is what I wanted to highlight. And personally I think the Christian EA above is super helpful even for EAs who think they are not 100% truth-seeking: They have connections to lots of other Christians who want to do good and could influence them to do even better. They also understand large swaths of global population and can be effective communicators and ensure various initiatives from Pause AI to bed nets go well when delivered to Christian populations. Or they might just be a super good alignment researcher and not care too much about knowing the truth of everything. And the diversity of thought they bring also has value. That said, I think "global truth-seekers" are also really important to EA - I think we would be much worse off if we did not have any people who were willing to go into every single issue trying to get ground contact with truth.  If helpful, and very simplistically, I guess I am wondering which of the two alternatives below we think is ideal?

I also thought the Oakland venue was a very good choice, and was glad the events team chose it again in 2024.

No self-interested person is ever going to point this out because it pisses off the mods and CEA, who ultimately decide whose voices can be heard - collectively, they can quietly ban anyone from the forum / EAG without any evidence, oversight, or due process.

I've heard the claim that the EA Forum is too expensive, repeatedly, on the EA Forum, from diverse users including yourself. If CEA is trying to suppress this claim, they're doing a very bad job of it, and I think it's just silly to claim that making that first claim is liable to get you banned.

-14
John Salter

By supporting Ozy’s post, Rafael agrees that anyone who reads all the words previously written on the issue belongs to an elite group. The definition of ‘elite’ is ‘a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society’.

I think it's fairly clear that the use of "elite" in that paragraph was a joke.

"How many people die in road accidents" doesn't tell you much about the badness of speeding without the denominator - which in the US is approximately everybody approximately all the time.

1
Rebecca
I would still think the ‘micromurder’ of speeding is higher than that of shoplifting? I still think I’m missing something in understanding the analogy

That link doesn't say anything about the Hamas attacks.

Whatever Hamas' plan was, what actually happened included gunning down hundreds of helpless civilians at a music festival and massive, brutal sexual violence against large numbers of women.

This isn't hard. Hamas' Oct 7 attacks were a brutal massacre of innocent civilian life. It's possible to acknowledge that at the same time as strongly condemning Israel's conduct, either in the current war specifically or in their history with Palestinians in general.

-8[comment deleted]

I downvoted this comment, even though I'm pretty sympathetic to many of the factual claims it contains: in particular, I don't believe that Israeli civilian or military leadership are doing everything they can to avoid civilian casualties. Nevertheless, this comment feels quite out-of-place and vaguely inappropriate to me, given the framing and emotional tone of the OP, which feels much more about explaining one person's feelings and thought processes than an actual attempt to make a strong argument for a specific position.

I also think it's needlessly host... (read more)

-118
KnightSaladin

The stated reason is the same as Nick's: since the FTX collapse he's been reused from too much board business for staying on the board to make sense:

Since last November, I’ve been recused from the board on all matters associated with FTX and related topics, which has ended up being a large proportion of board business. (This is because the recusal affected not just decisions that were directly related to the collapse of FTX, but also many other decisions for which the way EV UK has been affected by the collapse of FTX was important context.) I know I ini

... (read more)

TIL!

I think this strengthens my confidence in my original comment re: nearly all EA roles being paid under market rate.

Yeah, I agree this is a real and hard case.

Similarly, I think there are roles where the only readily available benchmarks are in academia or the nonprofit sector - in these cases we can assume that those benchmarks are too low, but we don't know by how much, so determining fair compensation is hard. Community building plausibly falls into this bucket.

4
DavidNash
There are a lot of private sector community roles, some with salaries up to $180k - Here are some examples from a community manager job board.

Interesting. Are there any examples of EA jobs which are more poorly-paid than their private-sector counterparts?

I think this is the great majority of EA jobs that aren't in operations.

In our case (as an EA-adjacent biosecurity org), it's simultaneously the case that (a) most of our staff are well-paid relative to academic and nonprofit benchmarks, and (b) most of our staff could make much more money working in the private sector. Several of our best (and best-compensated) performers took dramatic pay cuts to work for us. I think this is the norm for EA-ad... (read more)

4
calebp
(I agree with the above) One thing worth noting is that some people either 1. might not have clear well paying counterfactual salaries (e.g. in tech) but either could fairly quickly transition into those roles 2. or decided not to pursue those roles and instead pursued lower paying altruistically motivated work but could have earned a lot of money if they had made different choices early on. I am pretty confused about how much you "should" pay this kind of person - particularly in the second case. It seems like many people can make the claim that they "could" be earning more money doing x, even if x wasn't really an option for them. At the same time, I don't want to punish people for making altruistic sacrifices early in their careers.

I'm also curious about this. Boston is convenient to me as a Cambridge resident, but I'd guess that holding an event in DC would be more valuable.

I don't think I agree that CEA shouldn't be doing cause specific events, and I think that given how the past couple of Bay Area EAGs went this is a pretty natural decision.

But it does seem pretty regrettable that there'll be no cause-general EAG in the Americas next year.

9
ElliotJDavies
I think the crux for me, is using EAG branding for an event that doesn't represent all of Effective Altruism. If, like last year, an event will be run by CEA focusing on a particular area, I wouldn't be too concerned.

Just want to clarify — it's still possible that there is a cause-general EAG in the Americas next year (I expect slightly more than 50% likely, but this number is semi-made up).

Another two weeks later, and with no response or acknowledgement from Nonlinear (or even a statement about when they plan to give a response), I'm personally updating moderately towards the view that Nonlinear's communications around the initial release of this post were more about FUD/DARVO than honesty. I've also updated further towards the position that it was right for Ben to post when he did, and that delaying would have been playing into the hands of bad actors. These remain defeasible positions, but I'm not holding my breath.

Have no fear! We are responding. We’ve been working on this full time the entire time. We have over 200 pages written so far and are in the last stages of editing to the point where we’ll be able to get feedback from friends. We’re aiming to get this done in the next few weeks because we want to be working on things that actually help with AI. However, it’s a very large doc, it’s a hostile audience, it takes way more effort to debunk something than to say something, etc. Also, man, I really hate editing, so it’s a bit of a slog. 


(Obviously didn’t... (read more)

I think there are practical reasons why it might take longer to prepare a comprehensive public response than the private response they were envisaging for Ben + Lightcone. That said, I also think that there are a lot of non-comprehensive responses that would have taken less time to write while still supporting their version of events, and I think it's reasonable to update against Nonlinear in their absence.

5
Jeff Kaufman 🔸
Thanks for pointing this out! I had the impression they wanted time to prepare a public response that could go live contemporaneously with Ben's post, but reading the comments from Kat and Emerson it looks like you're right!

We're coming up on two weeks now since this post was published, with no substantive response from Nonlinear (other than this). I think it would be good to get an explicit timeline from Nonlinear on when we can expect to see their promised response. It's reasonable to ask for folks to reserve judgement for a short time, but not indefinitely. @Kat Woods @Emerson Spartz 

Another two weeks later, and with no response or acknowledgement from Nonlinear (or even a statement about when they plan to give a response), I'm personally updating moderately towards the view that Nonlinear's communications around the initial release of this post were more about FUD/DARVO than honesty. I've also updated further towards the position that it was right for Ben to post when he did, and that delaying would have been playing into the hands of bad actors. These remain defeasible positions, but I'm not holding my breath.

Notably, it's now been about twice as long as Nonlinear says they originally requested Ben to give them to prepare their side of the story (a week).

I hope this doesn't seem heartless, but: Given the degree of contested narratives in this affair, can someone not-anonymous with access to Chloe confirm that this account speaks for her?

(i think it probably does, to be clear, but also think it's worth checking)

Confirmed, this is Chloe.

8
Guy Raveh
@Ben Pace 

Thanks for this. I found the uncited claims about EA's "reputational collapse" in the OP quite frustrating and appreciated this more data-driven response.

I don't personally think posting this here is particularly helpful or adds much to the conversation.

It appears that Nonlinear has reached out to several individuals, likely more than one, to request positive comments about their interactions. To maintain a balanced perspective and offer a more comprehensive view, it would be fair and valuable to share experiences from the other side of the spectrum. This would be especially beneficial for those who have only encountered positive interactions with Nonlinear and may benefit from a more well-rounded understanding.

Thanks for clarifying, I agree category #3 is the most dicey of the three.

How do you see these trials as differing from standard probation? Is it that the chance of a no-hire at the end is higher? Or the length? Or something else?

In general, I think it is helpful in discussing work trials if people (including the OP) distinguished between three different things that are commonly called work trials:

  • Take-home trial tasks / timed online tests, which typically take somewhere in the region of 2-8 hours and are designed to be doable on a weekend or otherwise without work disruption.
  • Short (usually 1-3-day) work trials prior to receiving a job offer. This is what I usually think of as being referred to by the term "work trial". While it's technically true that these "interruption of regula
... (read more)
9
Rockwell
Thank you for listing these out; I think it's helpful to show that there are a range of work trial options with different levels of intensity and potential sacrifice on the part of the prospective employee. I was thinking more in the category of #3. To be clear, I don't think probationary employment is necessarily a bad thing. What I have seen though is a growing norm of work trials of one to three months. This seems to hit a particularly problematic middle ground of requiring a candidate to leave other employment and failing to guarantee medium-term job security. I think this is bad for a number of reasons, including making it less likely that employed people will apply for positions and consequently limiting the skilled applicant pool. It also creates a culture of precarity that I don't think should be a requirement for someone securing their "dream job" in EA.

One thing I'm confused about: Emerson is the one making threats, so how do I update on the rest of the Nonlinear team?

I was also uncertain about this, but Kat's comment above seems to indicate (though not outright say) that she supports the threat to sue.

7
Tristan W
Yeah I agree. One update for me: Ben's new post seems to imply that Drew is not implicated in most of this, and that seems in line with some of the comments, so I'm really tentative in updating at all on him and where he's at.

Most of the allegations in the OP seem comfortably out-of-distribution to me. (Unless the distribution includes FTX & Leverage, but we know how those went.)

I agree with this, and think it could have been a terrible day for EA if stuff like this surfaced later in a world where Nonlinear had become more influential. But thankfully* we're not in that world.

(* Thankfully assuming the allegations are broadly true etc etc.)

Thanks, I think taking the time to make this stronger phrasing publicly is quite valuable (and seems to match what everyone else is saying so far). It's important that we not engage in guilt-by-association.

Agreed. I would have wanted the post itself to make this more clear.

Whatever its legitimate uses, defamation law is also an extremely useful cudgel that bad actors can, and very frequently do, use to protect their reputations from true accusations. The cost in money, time and risk of going through a defamation trial is such that threats of such can very easily intimidate would-be truth-tellers into silence, especially when the people making the threat have a history of retaliation. Making such threats even when the case for defamation seems highly dubious (as here), should shift us toward believing that we are in the defam... (read more)

2
RobBensinger
Agreed on all counts.

I don't really see the "terrible day for EA" part? Maybe you think Nonlinear is more integral to EA as a whole than I do. To me it seems like an allegation of bad behaviour on the part of a notable but relatively minor actor in the space, that doesn't seem to particularly reflect a broader pattern.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but FWIW I think Sam Bankman-Freid and Alameda would have been honestly described as "a notable but relatively minor actor in the space" during the many years when they were building their resource base, hiring, getting funds, and during which time people knew multiple serious accusations about him/them. I am here trying to execute an algorithm that catches bad actors before they become too powerful. I think Emerson is very ambitious and would like a powerful role in EA/X-risk/etc.

Could be! I might end up with egg on my face here, in which case I will do my best to admit it. That said, my most important claim is my last: if you wanted me and others to truly withhold judgement, you really shouldn't have threatened to sue.

6
Emerson Spartz
I appreciate your willingness to update if we provide sufficient evidence to do so!

My thoughts, for those who want them:

  • I don't have much sympathy for those demanding a good reason why the post wasn't delayed. While I'm generally quite pro sharing posts with orgs, I think it's quite important that this doesn't give the org the right to delay or prevent the posting. This goes double given the belief of both the author and their witnesses that Nonlinear is not acting in good faith.
  • There seem to be enough uncontested/incontestable claims made in this post for me to feel comfortable recommending that junior folks in the community stay away f
... (read more)
5
Emerson Spartz
The reason we urge everyone to withhold judgment is because even what currently look like "uncontested/incontestable claims" are, in fact, very much contestable. For example: "(Kat's text screenshotted above is pretty blatant here)."  I agree that it does indeed look blatant here. But when you see the full context - the parts Alice conspicuously did not include - the meaning will change radically, to the point where you will likely question Alice's other claims and 'evidence'.

The world is as it is, now. Tomorrow, it will be a little different. Some of that difference will be because of things you did, or didn't do.

The differences you make could be inside you, in things you've learned or decisions you've made. They could be things you've written or made, known only to you as yet, but ready to propagate through the world on your command. Or they could already be out there, in the world, jumping from person to person, a chain of effects starting with you but much larger than you, feeding into the great chaotic system that is the w... (read more)

Yeah, I also don't report despite continuing to make my pledge donations. It doesn't feel like a core part of the pledge to me.

6
Linch
Same, I also decided my comparative advantage isn't to give to registered charities but to more idiosyncratic one-off stuff (though this isn't always enough to add up to 10%)
6
Jeff Kaufman 🔸
I mean, reporting isn't (and hasn't been) part of the pledge while giving is, so that makes sense!

This comment helped clarify my feelings here. It's not that the new style is bad, really - it's unremarkably fine, and after a while I'll probably stop noticing it. It's that the old Forum was a really unusually beautiful website, and throwing that away feels quite sad to me.

The functional/structural changes in the redesign seem good. I feel sad about the typographical changes.

The old Forum had a really nice, distinctive "bookish" style that I thought was classy, pleasant to read, and also somehow calming? The new design feels more crowded to me, and also more generic.

6
Sharang Phadke
Thanks for this observation! Funnily enough, “bookish” is exactly the descriptor we were using for the old design. I’m sorry the information feels overwhelming, and we’d like to see how this plays out as we all get more used to the new design. I want to expand on some of the reasons we’re showing more information and using friendlier fonts. One of our goals on the Forum team is to make the Forum accessible to people who are getting more engaged with the ideas of EA, but haven’t yet been part of the community for a long time.. Without getting into a full theory of change here, I think we’ve neglected designing for this user group a bit over the last several years. Some of the barriers to entry for these folks include: * Feeling that the Forum experience (fonts, look and feel) is quite jarring, and different from a lot of the internet they’re used to. * Understanding what the Forum as a space is all about Of course, we have to balance designing for this group of users with folks who actually use the Forum on a regular basis, and we’re hoping to strike that balance by collecting feedback like this, seeing how things play out, and continuing to experiment.
Load more