This shortform is relevant to e.g. understanding what’s going on and considerations on the value of working on safety at Anthropic, not just pressuring Anthropic.
Is this where we think our pressuring-Anthropic points are best spent ?
I think if someone has a 30-minute meeting with some highly influential and very busy person at Anthropic, it makes sense for them to have thought in advance about the most important things to ask & curate the agenda appropriately.
But I don’t think LW users should be thinking much about “pressuring-Anthropic points”. I see LW primarily as a platform for discourse (as opposed to a direct lobbying channel to labs), and I think it would be bad for the discourse if people felt like they had to censor questions/concerns about labs on LW unless it met some sort of “is this one of the most important things to be pushing for” bar.
I think it’s bad for discourse for us to pretend that discourse doesn’t have impacts on others in a democratic society. And I think the meta-censoring of discourse by claiming that certain questions might have implicit censorship impacts is one of the most anti-rationality trends in the rationalist sphere.
I recognize most users of this platform will likely disagree, and predict negative agreement-karma on this post.
I think it’s bad for discourse for us to pretend that discourse doesn’t have impacts on others in a democratic society.
I think I agree with this in principle. Possible that the crux between us is more like “what is the role of LessWrong.”
For instance, if Bob wrote a NYT article titled “Anthropic is not publishing its safety research”, I would be like “meh, this doesn’t seem like a particularly useful or high-priority thing to be bringing to everyone’s attention– there are like at least 10+ topics I would’ve much rather Bob spent his points on.”
But LW generally isn’t a place where you’re going to get EG thousands of readers or have a huge effect on general discourse (with the exception of a few things that go viral or AIS-viral).
So I’m not particularly worried about LW discussions having big second-order effects on democratic society. Whereas LW can be a space for people to have a relatively low bar for raising questions, being curious, trying to understand the world, offering criticism/praise without thinking much about how they want to be spending “points”, etc.
Of course it has impacts on others in society! In finding out the truth and investigating and finding strong arguments and evidence. The overall effect of a lot of high quality, curious, public investigation is to greatly improve others maps of the world in surprising ways and help people make better decisions, and this is true even if no individual thread of questioning is primarily optimized to help people make better decisions.
Re censoriousness: I think your question of how best to pressure an unethical company to be less unethical is a fine question, but to imply it’s the only good question (which I read into your comment, perhaps inaccurately) goes against the spirit of intellectual discourse.
It is genuinely a sign that we are all very bad at predicting others’ minds that it didn’t occur to me that if I said effectively “OP asked for ‘takes’, here’s a take on why I think this is pragmatically a bad idea” would also mean that I was saying “and therefore there is no other good question here”. That’s, as the meme goes, a whole different sentence.
Well, but you didn’t give a take on why it’s pragmatically a bad idea. If you’d written a comment with a pointer to something else worth pressuring them on, or gave a reason why publishing all the safety research doesn’t help very much / has hidden costs, I would’ve thought it a fine contribution to the discussion. Without that, the comment read to me as dismissive of the idea of exploring this question.
I disagree. I think the standard of “Am I contributing anything of substance to the conversation, such as a new argument or new information that someone can engage with?” is a pretty good standard for most/all comments to hold themselves to, regardless of the amount of engagement that is expected.
[Edit: Just FWIW, I have not voted on any of your comments in this thread.]
I think, having been raised in a series of very debate- and seminar-centric discussion cultures, that a quick-hit question like that is indeed contributing something of substance. I think it’s fair that folks disagree, and I think it’s also fair that people signal (e.g., with karma) that they think “hey man, let’s go a little less Socratic in our inquiry mode here.”
But, put in more rationalist-centric terms, sometimes the most useful Bayesian update you can offer someone else is, “I do not think everyone is having the same reaction to your argument that you expected.” (Also true for others doing that to me!)
(Edit to add two words to avoid ambiguity in meaning of my last sentence)
Ok, then to ask it again in your preferred question format: is this where we think our getting-potential-employees-of-Anthropic-to-consider-the-value-of-working-on-safety-at-Anthropic points are best spent?
This shortform is relevant to e.g. understanding what’s going on and considerations on the value of working on safety at Anthropic, not just pressuring Anthropic.
@Neel Nanda
Yeah, fair point, disagreement retracted
I think if someone has a 30-minute meeting with some highly influential and very busy person at Anthropic, it makes sense for them to have thought in advance about the most important things to ask & curate the agenda appropriately.
But I don’t think LW users should be thinking much about “pressuring-Anthropic points”. I see LW primarily as a platform for discourse (as opposed to a direct lobbying channel to labs), and I think it would be bad for the discourse if people felt like they had to censor questions/concerns about labs on LW unless it met some sort of “is this one of the most important things to be pushing for” bar.
I agree! I hope people regularly ask questions about Anthropic that they feel curious about, as well as questions that seem important to them :)
I think it’s bad for discourse for us to pretend that discourse doesn’t have impacts on others in a democratic society. And I think the meta-censoring of discourse by claiming that certain questions might have implicit censorship impacts is one of the most anti-rationality trends in the rationalist sphere.
I recognize most users of this platform will likely disagree, and predict negative agreement-karma on this post.
I think I agree with this in principle. Possible that the crux between us is more like “what is the role of LessWrong.”
For instance, if Bob wrote a NYT article titled “Anthropic is not publishing its safety research”, I would be like “meh, this doesn’t seem like a particularly useful or high-priority thing to be bringing to everyone’s attention– there are like at least 10+ topics I would’ve much rather Bob spent his points on.”
But LW generally isn’t a place where you’re going to get EG thousands of readers or have a huge effect on general discourse (with the exception of a few things that go viral or AIS-viral).
So I’m not particularly worried about LW discussions having big second-order effects on democratic society. Whereas LW can be a space for people to have a relatively low bar for raising questions, being curious, trying to understand the world, offering criticism/praise without thinking much about how they want to be spending “points”, etc.
Of course it has impacts on others in society! In finding out the truth and investigating and finding strong arguments and evidence. The overall effect of a lot of high quality, curious, public investigation is to greatly improve others maps of the world in surprising ways and help people make better decisions, and this is true even if no individual thread of questioning is primarily optimized to help people make better decisions.
Re censoriousness: I think your question of how best to pressure an unethical company to be less unethical is a fine question, but to imply it’s the only good question (which I read into your comment, perhaps inaccurately) goes against the spirit of intellectual discourse.
It is genuinely a sign that we are all very bad at predicting others’ minds that it didn’t occur to me that if I said effectively “OP asked for ‘takes’, here’s a take on why I think this is pragmatically a bad idea” would also mean that I was saying “and therefore there is no other good question here”. That’s, as the meme goes, a whole different sentence.
Well, but you didn’t give a take on why it’s pragmatically a bad idea. If you’d written a comment with a pointer to something else worth pressuring them on, or gave a reason why publishing all the safety research doesn’t help very much / has hidden costs, I would’ve thought it a fine contribution to the discussion. Without that, the comment read to me as dismissive of the idea of exploring this question.
Yes, I would agree that if I expected a short take to have this degree of attention, I would probably have written a longer comment.
Well, no, I take that back. I probably wouldn’t have written anything at all. To some, that might be a feature; to me, that’s a bug.
I disagree. I think the standard of “Am I contributing anything of substance to the conversation, such as a new argument or new information that someone can engage with?” is a pretty good standard for most/all comments to hold themselves to, regardless of the amount of engagement that is expected.
[Edit: Just FWIW, I have not voted on any of your comments in this thread.]
I think, having been raised in a series of very debate- and seminar-centric discussion cultures, that a quick-hit question like that is indeed contributing something of substance. I think it’s fair that folks disagree, and I think it’s also fair that people signal (e.g., with karma) that they think “hey man, let’s go a little less Socratic in our inquiry mode here.”
But, put in more rationalist-centric terms, sometimes the most useful Bayesian update you can offer someone else is, “I do not think everyone is having the same reaction to your argument that you expected.” (Also true for others doing that to me!)
(Edit to add two words to avoid ambiguity in meaning of my last sentence)
Ok, then to ask it again in your preferred question format: is this where we think our getting-potential-employees-of-Anthropic-to-consider-the-value-of-working-on-safety-at-Anthropic points are best spent?