Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share LW - What is the optimal frontier for due diligence? by RobertM
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
LW - What is the optimal frontier for due diligence? by RobertM
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What is the optimal frontier for due diligence?, published by RobertM on September 9, 2023 on LessWrong.
The title isn't quite right. My current take is that:
There is a ~10k word post sharing some damaging information about someone else.
3-4k words are describing accusations that are disputed.
However, a few have already had substantial evidence provided against them.
The post author doesn't think the accuracy of those accusations is particularly cruxy for their major takeaways.
Those accusations generally sound pretty bad.
The post doesn't explain why the (disputed) accusations are salient, if they aren't cruxy for the post author's major takeaways.
The post author may not find those accusations cruxy, but I would be surprised if nobody else found them cruxy for deciding between "there's some bad stuff in here, but it seems possible that most of the harm was caused by some combination of large cultural differences and poor communication", and "nope nope nope".
This is to say, our actions have effects beyond the EA ecosystem. I think it's wrong to decide that, because other people may update incorrectly based on evidence you've provided, the harm that comes from those updates doesn't matter much.
The thing I'm noticing is some kind of missing mood. I think that there's been a failure to inhabit the least convenient possible world, and the general distribution over possible outcomes, and correspondingly attempt to move to the pareto-frontier of outcomes assuming that distribution. This comment in particular seems to be operating in the frame of "You weren't behaving the way I'd update positively on if the accusations were true". In the world where the disputed accusations are in fact false, for the specific reasons they provided, I think it would be pretty strange to take the suggested course of action.
Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org
View all episodes
By The Nonlinear Fund
4.6
88 ratings
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What is the optimal frontier for due diligence?, published by RobertM on September 9, 2023 on LessWrong.
The title isn't quite right. My current take is that:
There is a ~10k word post sharing some damaging information about someone else.
3-4k words are describing accusations that are disputed.
However, a few have already had substantial evidence provided against them.
The post author doesn't think the accuracy of those accusations is particularly cruxy for their major takeaways.
Those accusations generally sound pretty bad.
The post doesn't explain why the (disputed) accusations are salient, if they aren't cruxy for the post author's major takeaways.
The post author may not find those accusations cruxy, but I would be surprised if nobody else found them cruxy for deciding between "there's some bad stuff in here, but it seems possible that most of the harm was caused by some combination of large cultural differences and poor communication", and "nope nope nope".
This is to say, our actions have effects beyond the EA ecosystem. I think it's wrong to decide that, because other people may update incorrectly based on evidence you've provided, the harm that comes from those updates doesn't matter much.
The thing I'm noticing is some kind of missing mood. I think that there's been a failure to inhabit the least convenient possible world, and the general distribution over possible outcomes, and correspondingly attempt to move to the pareto-frontier of outcomes assuming that distribution. This comment in particular seems to be operating in the frame of "You weren't behaving the way I'd update positively on if the accusations were true". In the world where the disputed accusations are in fact false, for the specific reasons they provided, I think it would be pretty strange to take the suggested course of action.
Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org