Luiza Jarovsky is one of the most influential people in the corporate AI Governance space right now: her newsletter has 80,000+ subscribers (mostly lawyers in the Data and Tech space) and has trained 1,300+ professionals from Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, and the likes.
Her audience are basically compliance lawyers who think AI safety means “don’t be racist” not “don’t kill everyone.” For her to recommend IABIED to that network is a non-trivial update on Overton window movement. These people literally sit in deployment decision meetings at Fortune 500s.
Corporate governance crowd is normally immune to longtermist args, but IABIED is cracking that.
I thought this meant she endorsed the title as her beliefs, so in case anyone else was confused, she has endorsed the book as worth reading, but not (to my knowledge) endorsed its thesis as “what I believe”.
Here’s what she writes:
Although, in general, I disagree with catastrophic framings of AI risk (which have been exploited by AI CEOs to increase interest in their products, as I recently wrote in my newsletter), the AI safety debate is an important one, and it concerns all of us.
There are differing opinions on the current path of AI development and its possible futures. There are also various gray zones and unanswered questions on possible ways to mitigate risk and avoid harm.
Yudkowsky has been researching AI alignment for over 20 years, and together with Soares, he has built a strong argument for why AI safety concerns are urgent and why action is needed now. Whether you agree with their tone or not, their book is worth reading.
Seems that she finds Eliezer+Nate credible in their concerns because they are not AI company CEOs but have been working on the problem for 2 decades.
Wow, those LinkedIn comments are ignorant. That’s a level of basic, uninformed stupidity I haven’t been exposed to in a long time.
I’ll tell you why this is wrong. Throughout history the most educated people have sort peace, it’s the least educated and most ignorant that have caused most wars
Many comments of this caliber. Setting aside the fact this is obviously wrong, and the fact that you shouldn’t be commenting on a book without having read a single word of it, and all the other negative things you can say, this makes me wonder how much of a bubble I’m living in. Is this really how people in general think?
I normally frequent Hacker News and LessWrong and so on. I naturally stay away from places like LinkedIn because they make me cringe. I wonder if that instinct has been giving me a warped view of humanity.
I wonder if there would be any value in going into such less-enlightened spaces and fighting the good fight, debating people like a 2000s-era atheist. It seems to have mostly worked out for the atheists.
Yes, I think this is considered standard outside the rationalist community. Strong opinions, zero evidence, sometimes statements that contradict facts that should be common knowledge, the general vibe of “I am very smart and everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and will be attacked verbally”.
It is so easy to forget when you are inside the rationalist bubble. But I think it is a reason why some people are so attracted to the rationalist bubble (even if they may not care about rationality per se, e.g. many ACX readers).
Hacker News is much better than the average, but even there I often find factually wrong trivially verifiable statements that remain unchallenged and upvoted as long as they have the right vibes. Even if I reply with a short factual correction and link the evidence, no one seems to care.
Many frequent users of LinkedIn are managers, and those are subject to specific selection pressures. I understand that comment as a public reminder for Luiza Jarovsky that she is outside the Overton window. Translated to autistic speech, the comment says: “High-status people propose solutions, low-status people complain about problems. The book mostly talks about problems, therefore it is low-status and you should not associate with it.”
EDIT: Oh, more horrible comments:
A: I would recommend doing some research on the authors before advertising their books… just a thought
B: Can you tell us what our findings then would be? With links, perhaps?
A: you’re the editor and researcher right? You’ll find plenty of reasons why this shouldn’t be endorsed.
This would get an instant ban on ACX. The usual frustrating “there is a problem with your argument, but I am not telling you what it is”. Like a monkey throwing feces.
capitalism already killed humans
Oh sure, that’s why you are still typing. What kind of discourse is possible with people who can’t distinguish between a literal meaning and a metaphor?
(Compared to this, comments like “The tool cannot outpace the source” are at least honest arguments.)
wonder if there would be any value in going into such less-enlightened spaces and fighting the good fight, debating people like a 2000s-era atheist. It seems to have mostly worked out for the atheists.
Not in a debatey way, but in an informative way, yes. Pretty easy too
gpt-5 can read IABIED, you can just ask gpt-5 to predict what Eliezer’s replies to these comments would be and send those. Mikhael Samin has a chatbot for this, Davey Morse used to host one if I remember, there are probably others.
Her academy is very, very popular among Tech DPOs and lawyers (data protection officers). I am not saying she isn’t a typical Linkedin influencer.
But her posting about something, in the data protection and corp AI Governance [1]world (in terms of influence), is akin to us seeing Zvi Mowshowitz post about something. Does this make sense?
DPOs are mostly also doing AI Governance in the tech and tech adjacent industry now. I should do a post about this because it may be part of the problem soon.
I’m not in law, but it seems more like an online course trying to be sold to me than a real conference. There is a long list of company logos, a bunch of credits and certifications promised, and a large blob of customer testimonials.
I clicked the link. I usually don’t read LinkedIn, but I think the things that rub you (and me) the wrong way are simply how the LinkedIn power users communicate normally. Their bubble is not ours.
Seems to me that Luiza Jarovsky made a big step outside the Overton window (and a few replies called her out on that), which is as much as we could reasonably hope for. Mentioning the book as “important, although I disagree with the framing” is a huge improvement over the “low-status shit, don’t touch that” current status.
Thank you! You’ve managed to explain exactly what I thought when I saw this link. And re the LinkedIn comment—I’m actually surprised that people are surprised. I know people who post very high quality articles there, but mostly it’s become slop land. The pattern I’m noticing is: LinkedIn writers who value quality slowly transitioning to Substack, and those in their audiences that want to think moving with them.
It’s not a conference, it’s an online course and it’s one of the most popular among privacy professionals. The most popular being those offered by IAPP (International Association of Privacy Professionals). She’s legitimately that well regarded. I’d love to know where the disconnect is for you?
Although ironically, I was talking to my boyfriend about how people in law or compliance would have the same reaction (“what? This guy is important?”) if I said so about Zvi and just linked his Substack XD. I guess different impressions in different communities.
She does seem like a LinkedIn grifter, but if she’s a popular LinkedIn grifter I guess this could mean something.
I’m not sure if important people at Fortune 500s are reading LinkedIn grifter newsletters. Or if Fortune 500s that aren’t Alphabet or Nvidia are actually relevant for AI.
Maybe Luisa Jarovsky’s recommendation is primarily important as an indicator that “normies” (who can vote, etc.) are aware of IABIED.
This is the 29th book Luisa has recommended for her “AI book club,” so possibly she just needed something to recommend and IABIED is a recent AI book with a lot of marketing around it. And even in her recommendation, she mentions that she “disagrees with catastrophic framings of AI risk.”
Although, in general, I disagree with catastrophic framings of AI risk (which have been exploited by AI CEOs to increase interest in their products, as I recently wrote in my newsletter), the AI safety debate is an important one, and it concerns all of us.
There are differing opinions on the current path of AI development and its possible futures. There are also various gray zones and unanswered questions on possible ways to mitigate risk and avoid harm.
Yudkowsky has been researching AI alignment for over 20 years, and together with Soares, he has built a strong argument for why AI safety concerns are urgent and why action is needed now. Whether you agree with their tone or not, their book is worth reading.
Luiza Jarovsky just endorsed IABIED. This is actually significant.
Luiza Jarovsky is one of the most influential people in the corporate AI Governance space right now: her newsletter has 80,000+ subscribers (mostly lawyers in the Data and Tech space) and has trained 1,300+ professionals from Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, and the likes.
Her audience are basically compliance lawyers who think AI safety means “don’t be racist” not “don’t kill everyone.” For her to recommend IABIED to that network is a non-trivial update on Overton window movement. These people literally sit in deployment decision meetings at Fortune 500s.
Corporate governance crowd is normally immune to longtermist args, but IABIED is cracking that.
I thought this meant she endorsed the title as her beliefs, so in case anyone else was confused, she has endorsed the book as worth reading, but not (to my knowledge) endorsed its thesis as “what I believe”.
Here’s what she writes:
Seems that she finds Eliezer+Nate credible in their concerns because they are not AI company CEOs but have been working on the problem for 2 decades.
Wow, those LinkedIn comments are ignorant. That’s a level of basic, uninformed stupidity I haven’t been exposed to in a long time.
Many comments of this caliber. Setting aside the fact this is obviously wrong, and the fact that you shouldn’t be commenting on a book without having read a single word of it, and all the other negative things you can say, this makes me wonder how much of a bubble I’m living in. Is this really how people in general think?
I normally frequent Hacker News and LessWrong and so on. I naturally stay away from places like LinkedIn because they make me cringe. I wonder if that instinct has been giving me a warped view of humanity.
I wonder if there would be any value in going into such less-enlightened spaces and fighting the good fight, debating people like a 2000s-era atheist. It seems to have mostly worked out for the atheists.
Yes, I think this is considered standard outside the rationalist community. Strong opinions, zero evidence, sometimes statements that contradict facts that should be common knowledge, the general vibe of “I am very smart and everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and will be attacked verbally”.
It is so easy to forget when you are inside the rationalist bubble. But I think it is a reason why some people are so attracted to the rationalist bubble (even if they may not care about rationality per se, e.g. many ACX readers).
Hacker News is much better than the average, but even there I often find factually wrong trivially verifiable statements that remain unchallenged and upvoted as long as they have the right vibes. Even if I reply with a short factual correction and link the evidence, no one seems to care.
Many frequent users of LinkedIn are managers, and those are subject to specific selection pressures. I understand that comment as a public reminder for Luiza Jarovsky that she is outside the Overton window. Translated to autistic speech, the comment says: “High-status people propose solutions, low-status people complain about problems. The book mostly talks about problems, therefore it is low-status and you should not associate with it.”
EDIT: Oh, more horrible comments:
This would get an instant ban on ACX. The usual frustrating “there is a problem with your argument, but I am not telling you what it is”. Like a monkey throwing feces.
Oh sure, that’s why you are still typing. What kind of discourse is possible with people who can’t distinguish between a literal meaning and a metaphor?
(Compared to this, comments like “The tool cannot outpace the source” are at least honest arguments.)
Not in a debatey way, but in an informative way, yes. Pretty easy too
You have done so?
yes. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7381791560054546432/?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(activity%3A7381791560054546432%2C7381807819039088640)&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A(7381807819039088640%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7381791560054546432)&dashReplyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A(7381818125865943040%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7381791560054546432)&replyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(activity%3A7381791560054546432%2C7381818125865943040)
Nice. It seems like the comment was pretty much ignored though, which is a tactic I think normal people often use with comments they don’t like.
Not really—the guy DMed me and we had a call. He wanted to learn more. Also, talked about meeting up in Washington, when I host an event there.
Wow, that’s awesome. I’ve never had someone I refuted online try to schedule a call with me.
Huh. I think I’ve had at least 3. And done so myself for at least 2 people who refuted me
gpt-5 can read IABIED, you can just ask gpt-5 to predict what Eliezer’s replies to these comments would be and send those. Mikhael Samin has a chatbot for this, Davey Morse used to host one if I remember, there are probably others.
She is? She just seems like a standard LinkedIn grifter.
Perhaps this is a better reference point: https://academy.aitechprivacy.com/ai-governance-training
Her academy is very, very popular among Tech DPOs and lawyers (data protection officers). I am not saying she isn’t a typical Linkedin influencer.
But her posting about something, in the data protection and corp AI Governance [1]world (in terms of influence), is akin to us seeing Zvi Mowshowitz post about something. Does this make sense?
DPOs are mostly also doing AI Governance in the tech and tech adjacent industry now. I should do a post about this because it may be part of the problem soon.
I’m not in law, but it seems more like an online course trying to be sold to me than a real conference. There is a long list of company logos, a bunch of credits and certifications promised, and a large blob of customer testimonials.
Did some quick googling and an actual conference would look like this. https://www.lsuite.co/techgc
I’m surprised this comment has so many upvotes. Did anyone actually click the link?
I clicked the link. I usually don’t read LinkedIn, but I think the things that rub you (and me) the wrong way are simply how the LinkedIn power users communicate normally. Their bubble is not ours.
Seems to me that Luiza Jarovsky made a big step outside the Overton window (and a few replies called her out on that), which is as much as we could reasonably hope for. Mentioning the book as “important, although I disagree with the framing” is a huge improvement over the “low-status shit, don’t touch that” current status.
Thank you! You’ve managed to explain exactly what I thought when I saw this link. And re the LinkedIn comment—I’m actually surprised that people are surprised. I know people who post very high quality articles there, but mostly it’s become slop land. The pattern I’m noticing is: LinkedIn writers who value quality slowly transitioning to Substack, and those in their audiences that want to think moving with them.
It’s not a conference, it’s an online course and it’s one of the most popular among privacy professionals. The most popular being those offered by IAPP (International Association of Privacy Professionals). She’s legitimately that well regarded. I’d love to know where the disconnect is for you?
Although ironically, I was talking to my boyfriend about how people in law or compliance would have the same reaction (“what? This guy is important?”) if I said so about Zvi and just linked his Substack XD. I guess different impressions in different communities.
She does seem like a LinkedIn grifter, but if she’s a popular LinkedIn grifter I guess this could mean something.
I’m not sure if important people at Fortune 500s are reading LinkedIn grifter newsletters. Or if Fortune 500s that aren’t Alphabet or Nvidia are actually relevant for AI.
Maybe Luisa Jarovsky’s recommendation is primarily important as an indicator that “normies” (who can vote, etc.) are aware of IABIED.
This is the 29th book Luisa has recommended for her “AI book club,” so possibly she just needed something to recommend and IABIED is a recent AI book with a lot of marketing around it. And even in her recommendation, she mentions that she “disagrees with catastrophic framings of AI risk.”
that’s not very consistent with my understanding of the words “endorsed IABIED” from OP
This is what she says: