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.
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.