I would very much like to encourage people to not slip into the “MIRI/CFAR as one homogenous social entity” frame, as detailed in a reply to the earlier post.
I think it’s genuinely misleading and confusion-inducing, and that the kind of evaluation and understanding that Jessica is hoping for (as far as I can tell) will benefit from less indiscriminate lumping-together-of-things rather than more.
Even within each org—someone could spend 100 hours in conversation with one of Julia Galef, Anna Salamon, Val Smith, Pete Michaud, Kenzie Ashkie, or Dan Keys, and accurately describe any of those as “100 hours of close interaction with a central member of CFAR,” and yet those would be W I L D L Y different experiences, well worth disambiguating.
If someone spent 100 hours of close interaction with Julia or Dan or Kenzie, I would expect them to have zero negative effects and to have had a great time.
If someone spent 100 hours of close interaction with Anna or Val or Pete, I would want to make absolutely sure they had lots of resources available to them, just in case (those three being much more head-melty and having a much wider spread of impacts on people).
It’s not only that saying something like “100 hours with CFAR” would provide no useful update without further information, it’s that it makes it seem like there should be an update, while obfuscating the missing crucial facts.
And as someone who’s spent the past six years deeply embedded in first CFAR and then subsequently MIRI, Jessica’s experience greatly disresembles mine. Which in no way implies that her account is false! The point I’m trying to make is, “MIRI/CFAR” is not (at all) a homogenous thing.
If someone spent 100 hours of close interaction with Julia or Dan or Kenzie, I would expect them to have zero negative effects and to have had a great time.
If someone spent 100 hours of close interaction with Anna or Val or Pete, I would want to make absolutely sure they had lots of resources available to them just in case (those three being much more head-melty and having a much wider spread of impacts on people)
As a complete outsider who stumbled upon this post and thread, I find it surprising and concerning that there’s anyone at MIRI/CFAR with whom spending a few weeks might be dangerous, mental-health-wise.
Would “Anna or Val or Pete” (I don’t know who these people are) object to your statement above? If not, I’d hope they’re concerned about how they are negatively affecting people around them and are working to change that. If they have this effect somewhat consistently, then the onus is probably on them to adjust their behavior.
Perhaps some clarification is needed here—unless the intended and likely readers are insiders who will have more context than me.
(Edited to make top quote include more of the original text—per Duncan’s request)
Small nitpicky request: would you be willing to edit into your quotation the part that goes “just in case (those three being much more head-melty and having a much wider spread of impacts on people)”?
Its excision changes the meaning of my sentence, into something untrue. Those words were there on purpose, because without them the sentence is misleadingly alarming.
FWIW, it is concerning to me, too, and was at least a little bit a point of contention between me and each of those three while we were colleagues together at CFAR, and somewhat moreso after I had left. But my intention was not to say “these people are bad” or “these people are casually dangerous.” More “these people are heavy-hitters when it comes to other people’s psychologies, for better and worse.”
I would very much like to encourage people to not slip into the “MIRI/CFAR as one homogenous social entity” frame, as detailed in a reply to the earlier post.
I think it’s genuinely misleading and confusion-inducing, and that the kind of evaluation and understanding that Jessica is hoping for (as far as I can tell) will benefit from less indiscriminate lumping-together-of-things rather than more.
Even within each org—someone could spend 100 hours in conversation with one of Julia Galef, Anna Salamon, Val Smith, Pete Michaud, Kenzie Ashkie, or Dan Keys, and accurately describe any of those as “100 hours of close interaction with a central member of CFAR,” and yet those would be W I L D L Y different experiences, well worth disambiguating.
If someone spent 100 hours of close interaction with Julia or Dan or Kenzie, I would expect them to have zero negative effects and to have had a great time.
If someone spent 100 hours of close interaction with Anna or Val or Pete, I would want to make absolutely sure they had lots of resources available to them, just in case (those three being much more head-melty and having a much wider spread of impacts on people).
It’s not only that saying something like “100 hours with CFAR” would provide no useful update without further information, it’s that it makes it seem like there should be an update, while obfuscating the missing crucial facts.
And as someone who’s spent the past six years deeply embedded in first CFAR and then subsequently MIRI, Jessica’s experience greatly disresembles mine. Which in no way implies that her account is false! The point I’m trying to make is, “MIRI/CFAR” is not (at all) a homogenous thing.
As a complete outsider who stumbled upon this post and thread, I find it surprising and concerning that there’s anyone at MIRI/CFAR with whom spending a few weeks might be dangerous, mental-health-wise.
Would “Anna or Val or Pete” (I don’t know who these people are) object to your statement above? If not, I’d hope they’re concerned about how they are negatively affecting people around them and are working to change that. If they have this effect somewhat consistently, then the onus is probably on them to adjust their behavior.
Perhaps some clarification is needed here—unless the intended and likely readers are insiders who will have more context than me.
(Edited to make top quote include more of the original text—per Duncan’s request)
The OP cites Anna’s comment where she talked about manipulating people.
Small nitpicky request: would you be willing to edit into your quotation the part that goes “just in case (those three being much more head-melty and having a much wider spread of impacts on people)”?
Its excision changes the meaning of my sentence, into something untrue. Those words were there on purpose, because without them the sentence is misleadingly alarming.
Fair point! Done.
It is still concerning to me (of course, having read your original comment), but I can see how it may have mislead others who were skimming.
FWIW, it is concerning to me, too, and was at least a little bit a point of contention between me and each of those three while we were colleagues together at CFAR, and somewhat moreso after I had left. But my intention was not to say “these people are bad” or “these people are casually dangerous.” More “these people are heavy-hitters when it comes to other people’s psychologies, for better and worse.”