Thanks for this detailed response; I found it quite helpful. I maintain my “yeah, they should probably get as much funding as they want” stance. I’m especially glad to see that Lightcone might be interested in helping people stay sane/grounded as many people charge into the policy space.
I ended up deciding to instead publish a short post, expecting that people will write a lot of questions in the comments, and then to engage straightforwardly and transparently there, which felt like a way that was more likely to end up with shared understanding.
This seems quite reasonable to me. I think it might’ve been useful to include something short in the original post that made this clear. I know you said “also feel free to ask any questions in the comments”; in an ideal world, this would probably be enough, but I’m guessing this isn’t enough given power/status dynamics.
For example, if ARC Evals released a post like this, I expect many people would experience friction that prevented them from asking (or even generating) questions that might (a) make ARC Evals look bad, (b) make the commenter seem dumb, or (c) potentially worsen the relationship between the commenter and ARC evals.
To Lightcone’s credit, I think Lightcone has maintained a (stronger) reputation of being fairly open to objections (and not penalizing people for asking “dumb questions” or something like that), but the Desire Not to Upset High-status People or Desire Not to Look Dumb In Front of Your Peers By Asking Things You’re Already Supposed to Know are strong.
I’m guessing that part of why I felt comfortable asking (and even going past the “yay, I like Lightcone and therefore I support this post” to the mental motion of “wait, am I actually satisfied with this post? What questions do I have”) is that I’ve had a chance to interact in-person with the Lightcone team on many occasions, so I felt considerably less psychological friction than most.
All things considered, perhaps an ideal version of the post would’ve said something short like “we understand we haven’t given any details about what we’re actually planning to do or how we’d use the funding. This is because Oli finds this stressful. But we actually really want you to ask questions, even “dumb questions”, in the comments.”
(To be clear I don’t think the lack of doing this was particularly harmful, and I think your comment definitely addresses this. I’m nit-picking because I think it’s an interesting microcosm of broader status/power dynamics that get in the way of discourse, and because I expect the Lightcone team to be unusually interested in this kind of thing.)
Thanks for this detailed response; I found it quite helpful. I maintain my “yeah, they should probably get as much funding as they want” stance. I’m especially glad to see that Lightcone might be interested in helping people stay sane/grounded as many people charge into the policy space.
This seems quite reasonable to me. I think it might’ve been useful to include something short in the original post that made this clear. I know you said “also feel free to ask any questions in the comments”; in an ideal world, this would probably be enough, but I’m guessing this isn’t enough given power/status dynamics.
For example, if ARC Evals released a post like this, I expect many people would experience friction that prevented them from asking (or even generating) questions that might (a) make ARC Evals look bad, (b) make the commenter seem dumb, or (c) potentially worsen the relationship between the commenter and ARC evals.
To Lightcone’s credit, I think Lightcone has maintained a (stronger) reputation of being fairly open to objections (and not penalizing people for asking “dumb questions” or something like that), but the Desire Not to Upset High-status People or Desire Not to Look Dumb In Front of Your Peers By Asking Things You’re Already Supposed to Know are strong.
I’m guessing that part of why I felt comfortable asking (and even going past the “yay, I like Lightcone and therefore I support this post” to the mental motion of “wait, am I actually satisfied with this post? What questions do I have”) is that I’ve had a chance to interact in-person with the Lightcone team on many occasions, so I felt considerably less psychological friction than most.
All things considered, perhaps an ideal version of the post would’ve said something short like “we understand we haven’t given any details about what we’re actually planning to do or how we’d use the funding. This is because Oli finds this stressful. But we actually really want you to ask questions, even “dumb questions”, in the comments.”
(To be clear I don’t think the lack of doing this was particularly harmful, and I think your comment definitely addresses this. I’m nit-picking because I think it’s an interesting microcosm of broader status/power dynamics that get in the way of discourse, and because I expect the Lightcone team to be unusually interested in this kind of thing.)