What is this “us” that will be harmed by Zack talking to this guy? Game this out for me. Who is harmed, in what specific way, by Zack giving interviews like this?
I liked Jiro’s littering analogy. I assume the causal story goes, rats talk to Metz → Metz has an easier time writing articles and a book portraying rats as unreasonable/low-status (which don’t have to rise to the level of overtly hostile hit pieces) → people who trust New York Times reporters have lower opinions of rats → those people e.g. discriminate against us in hiring or support worse AI policies in expectation. I buy that there’s a real effect here; it just seems small enough that I don’t particularly feel like suppressing my natural inclination to talk to everyone and do cool meta-journalism.
What is this “us” that will be harmed by Zack talking to this guy? Game this out for me. Who is harmed, in what specific way, by Zack giving interviews like this?
I liked Jiro’s littering analogy. I assume the causal story goes, rats talk to Metz → Metz has an easier time writing articles and a book portraying rats as unreasonable/low-status (which don’t have to rise to the level of overtly hostile hit pieces) → people who trust New York Times reporters have lower opinions of rats → those people e.g. discriminate against us in hiring or support worse AI policies in expectation. I buy that there’s a real effect here; it just seems small enough that I don’t particularly feel like suppressing my natural inclination to talk to everyone and do cool meta-journalism.
Rats talk to Metz → Metz has an easier time writing about rats → more people learn about rats → there are more rats → rats talk to Metz