Seems to me that, given the current situation, it would probably be good to wait maybe two more days until this debate naturally reaches the end. And then restart the debate about Leverage.
Otherwise, we risk having two debates running in parallel, interfering with each other.
The comments section of this post is full of CFAR and MIRI employees attempting to do collaborative truth-seeking. The only comments made by Leverage employees in comparable threads were attempts at reputation management. That alone tells you a lot!
Then it is good that this debate happened. (Despite my shock when I saw it first.) It’s just the timing with regards to the debate about Leverage that is unfortunate.
When everyone knows everyone else it’s more like Facebook than say Reddit. I don’t know why so many real life organizations are basing their discussions on these open forums online. Maybe they want to attract more people to think about certain problems. Maybe they want to spread their jeans. Either way, normal academic research don’t involving knocking on people’s doors and ask them if they are interested in doing such and such research. To a less extreme degree, they don’t even ask their family and friends to join their research circle. When you befriend your coworkers in the corporate world, things can get real messy real quick, depending on to what extent they are involved/interfering with your life outside of work. Maybe that’s why they are distinguishing themselves from your typical workplace.
MIRI and CFAR are non-profits, they need to approach fundraising and talent-seeking differently than universities or for-profit corporations.
In addition, neither of them is pure research institution. MIRI’s mission includes making people who work on AI, or make important decisions about AI, aware of the risks involved. CFAR’s mission includes teaching of rationality techniques. Both of them require communication with public.
This doesn’t explain all the differences, but at least some of them.
Seems to me that, given the current situation, it would probably be good to wait maybe two more days until this debate naturally reaches the end. And then restart the debate about Leverage.
Otherwise, we risk having two debates running in parallel, interfering with each other.
Then it is good that this debate happened. (Despite my shock when I saw it first.) It’s just the timing with regards to the debate about Leverage that is unfortunate.
When everyone knows everyone else it’s more like Facebook than say Reddit. I don’t know why so many real life organizations are basing their discussions on these open forums online. Maybe they want to attract more people to think about certain problems. Maybe they want to spread their jeans. Either way, normal academic research don’t involving knocking on people’s doors and ask them if they are interested in doing such and such research. To a less extreme degree, they don’t even ask their family and friends to join their research circle. When you befriend your coworkers in the corporate world, things can get real messy real quick, depending on to what extent they are involved/interfering with your life outside of work. Maybe that’s why they are distinguishing themselves from your typical workplace.
MIRI and CFAR are non-profits, they need to approach fundraising and talent-seeking differently than universities or for-profit corporations.
In addition, neither of them is pure research institution. MIRI’s mission includes making people who work on AI, or make important decisions about AI, aware of the risks involved. CFAR’s mission includes teaching of rationality techniques. Both of them require communication with public.
This doesn’t explain all the differences, but at least some of them.