“This grant was obviously ex ante bad. In fact, it’s so obvious that it was ex ante bad that we should strongly update against everyone involved in making it.”
This is an accurate summary.
“arguing about the impact of grants requires much more thoroughness than you’re using here”
We might not agree on the level of effort required for a quick take. I do not currently have the time available to expand this into a full write up on the EA forum but am still interested in discussing this with the community.
“you’re making a provocative claim but not really spelling out why you believe the premises.”
I think this is a fair criticism and something I hope I can improve on.
I feel frustrated that your initial comment (which is now the top reply) implies I either hadn’t read the 1700 word grant justification that is at the core of my argument, or was intentionally misrepresenting it to make my point. This seems to be an extremely uncharitable interpretation of my initial post. (Edit: I am retracting this statement and now understand Buck’s comment was meaningful context. Apologies to Buck and see commentary by Ryan Greenblat below)
Your reply has been quite meta, which makes it difficult to convince you on specific points.
Your argument on betting markets has updated me slightly towards your position, but I am not particularly convinced. My understanding is that Open Phil and OpenAI had a close relationship, and hence Open Phil had substantially more information to work with than the average manifold punter.
I feel frustrated that your initial comment (which is now the top reply) implies I either hadn’t read the 1700 word grant justification that is at the core of my argument, or was intentionally misrepresenting it to make my point.
I think this comment is extremely important for bystanders to understand the context of the grant and it isn’t mentioned in your original short form post.
So, regardless of whether you understand the situation, it’s important that other people understand the intention of the grant (and this intention isn’t obvious from your original comment). Thus, this comment from Buck is valuable.
I also think that the main interpretation from bystanders of your original shortform would be something like:
OpenPhil made a grant to OpenAI
OpenAI is bad (and this was ex-ante obvious)
Therefore this grant is bad and the people who made this grant are bad.
Fair enough if this wasn’t your intention, but I think it will be how bystanders interact with this.
“This grant was obviously ex ante bad. In fact, it’s so obvious that it was ex ante bad that we should strongly update against everyone involved in making it.”
This is an accurate summary.
“arguing about the impact of grants requires much more thoroughness than you’re using here”
We might not agree on the level of effort required for a quick take. I do not currently have the time available to expand this into a full write up on the EA forum but am still interested in discussing this with the community.
“you’re making a provocative claim but not really spelling out why you believe the premises.”
I think this is a fair criticism and something I hope I can improve on.
I feel frustrated that your initial comment (which is now the top reply) implies I either hadn’t read the 1700 word grant justification that is at the core of my argument, or was intentionally misrepresenting it to make my point. This seems to be an extremely uncharitable interpretation of my initial post. (Edit: I am retracting this statement and now understand Buck’s comment was meaningful context. Apologies to Buck and see commentary by Ryan Greenblat below)Your reply has been quite meta, which makes it difficult to convince you on specific points.
Your argument on betting markets has updated me slightly towards your position, but I am not particularly convinced. My understanding is that Open Phil and OpenAI had a close relationship, and hence Open Phil had substantially more information to work with than the average manifold punter.
I think this comment is extremely important for bystanders to understand the context of the grant and it isn’t mentioned in your original short form post.
So, regardless of whether you understand the situation, it’s important that other people understand the intention of the grant (and this intention isn’t obvious from your original comment). Thus, this comment from Buck is valuable.
I also think that the main interpretation from bystanders of your original shortform would be something like:
OpenPhil made a grant to OpenAI
OpenAI is bad (and this was ex-ante obvious)
Therefore this grant is bad and the people who made this grant are bad.
Fair enough if this wasn’t your intention, but I think it will be how bystanders interact with this.
Thank you, this explains my error. I’ve retracted that part of my response.