Your objections focus on EY. SIAI > EY. Therefore, SIAI’s transparency <> EY’s transparency. SIAI’s openness to criticism > EY’s openness to criticism.
Go to SIAI’s website, and you can find a list of their recent accomplishments. You can also get a detailed breakdown of funding by grant, and make an earmarked donation to a specific grant. That’s pretty transparent.
OTOH, EY is non-transparent. Deliberately so; and he appears to intend to continue to be so. And you can’t find a breakdown on SIAI’s website of what fraction of their donations go into the “Eliezer Yudkowsky black ops” part of their budget. It would be nice to know that.
If you’re worried about what EY is doing and don’t want to give him money, you can earmark money for other purposes. Of course, money is fungible, so that capability has limited value.
Phil, I like your comments. Some points in response:
•My concern is not really that the fraction of SIAI donations which go to EY is too large, but rather the (significant) possibility that SIAI is attracting donations and volunteers on the premise that EY’s unjustified claims about the state of the world are true. I think that it’s very important that SIAI make it clear precisely how much it claims to be true.
•A large part of the issue is that there’s ambiguity as to whether EY is properly regarded as a spokesperson for SIAI. As Airedale says
...I wanted to address one particular public relations problem, or at least, public relations issue, that is evident from your criticism so far – that is, there is an (understandable) perception that many observers have that SIAI and Eliezer are essentially synonymous. In the past, this perception may have been largely accurate. I don’t think that it currently holds true, but it definitely continues to persist in many people’s minds.
As I said in response to EY here, as long as SIAI makes it clear that EY is not an official representative of SIAI and points to official representatives of SIAI who accurately reflect SIAI’s position, there shouldn’t be a problem.
Your objections focus on EY. SIAI > EY. Therefore, SIAI’s transparency <> EY’s transparency. SIAI’s openness to criticism > EY’s openness to criticism.
Go to SIAI’s website, and you can find a list of their recent accomplishments. You can also get a detailed breakdown of funding by grant, and make an earmarked donation to a specific grant. That’s pretty transparent.
OTOH, EY is non-transparent. Deliberately so; and he appears to intend to continue to be so. And you can’t find a breakdown on SIAI’s website of what fraction of their donations go into the “Eliezer Yudkowsky black ops” part of their budget. It would be nice to know that.
If you’re worried about what EY is doing and don’t want to give him money, you can earmark money for other purposes. Of course, money is fungible, so that capability has limited value.
Phil, I like your comments. Some points in response:
•My concern is not really that the fraction of SIAI donations which go to EY is too large, but rather the (significant) possibility that SIAI is attracting donations and volunteers on the premise that EY’s unjustified claims about the state of the world are true. I think that it’s very important that SIAI make it clear precisely how much it claims to be true.
•A large part of the issue is that there’s ambiguity as to whether EY is properly regarded as a spokesperson for SIAI. As Airedale says
As I said in response to EY here, as long as SIAI makes it clear that EY is not an official representative of SIAI and points to official representatives of SIAI who accurately reflect SIAI’s position, there shouldn’t be a problem.