That might be the case, but then it only increases the amount of work your company should be doing to carve out and figure out the info that can be made public, and engage with criticism. There should be whole teams who have Twitter accounts and LW accounts and do regular AMAs and show up to podcasts and who have a mandate internally to seek information in the organization and publish relevant info, and there should be internal policies that reflect an understanding that it is correct for some research teams to spend 10-50% of their yearly effort toward making publishable version of research and decision-making principles in order to inform your stakeholders (read: the citizens of earth) and critics about decisions you are making directly related to existential catastrophes that you are getting rich running toward. Not monologue-style blogposts, but dialogue-style comment sections & interviews.
Confidentiality-by-default does not mean you get to abdicate responsibility for answering questions to the people whose lives you are risking about how-and-why you are making decisions, it means you have to put more work into doing it well. If your company valued the rest of the world understanding what is going on yet thought confidentiality by-default was required, I think it would be trying significantly harder to overcome this barrier.
My general principle is that if you are wielding a lot of power over people that they didn’t otherwise legitimately grant you (in this case building a potential doomsday device), you owe them to be auditable. You are supposed to show up and answer their questions directly – not “thank you so much for the questions, in six months I will publish a related blogpost on this topic” but more like “with the public info available to me, here’s my best guess answer to your specific question today”. Especially so if you are doing something the people you have power over perceive as norm-violating, and even more-so when you are keeping the answers to some very important questions secret from them.
That might be the case, but then it only increases the amount of work your company should be doing to carve out and figure out the info that can be made public, and engage with criticism. There should be whole teams who have Twitter accounts and LW accounts and do regular AMAs and show up to podcasts and who have a mandate internally to seek information in the organization and publish relevant info, and there should be internal policies that reflect an understanding that it is correct for some research teams to spend 10-50% of their yearly effort toward making publishable version of research and decision-making principles in order to inform your stakeholders (read: the citizens of earth) and critics about decisions you are making directly related to existential catastrophes that you are getting rich running toward. Not monologue-style blogposts, but dialogue-style comment sections & interviews.
Confidentiality-by-default does not mean you get to abdicate responsibility for answering questions to the people whose lives you are risking about how-and-why you are making decisions, it means you have to put more work into doing it well. If your company valued the rest of the world understanding what is going on yet thought confidentiality by-default was required, I think it would be trying significantly harder to overcome this barrier.
My general principle is that if you are wielding a lot of power over people that they didn’t otherwise legitimately grant you (in this case building a potential doomsday device), you owe them to be auditable. You are supposed to show up and answer their questions directly – not “thank you so much for the questions, in six months I will publish a related blogpost on this topic” but more like “with the public info available to me, here’s my best guess answer to your specific question today”. Especially so if you are doing something the people you have power over perceive as norm-violating, and even more-so when you are keeping the answers to some very important questions secret from them.