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.
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