It would have been nice if Ben’s root comment had explained this distinction upfront, because it has meaningful impacts on how allies may want to interact with the space. Would you let an organization host an event at Lighthaven where Vassar is a featured speaker?
Makes sense, I’ll try to be clearer about that in future.
(As to your question, I don’t have a clear yes/no, would depend a lot on context. I care a lot about events at the space feeling comfortable setting their own attendee list, even if sometimes that means having people there who I think have terrible character and/or have committed terrible deeds.)
Among other reasons, because many people won’t notice the nuance, and may conclude “I saw Vassar in Lighthaven, so… I guess he is a member of the rationality community in good standing”. Especially because Vassar is there, and can support that mistake; but you won’t be there to explain the fine points of the Lightcone policy.
Do not infer that someone is a member in good standing from being at Lighthaven! That is not how this works, and it’s not the point of Lighthaven, and people should stop trying to make it be the case. We’ve had Sam Altman here, we will have many other lab executives here.
Definitely the average visitor, who is an attendee of a random conference and knows that they don’t have a high-trust relationship with me or anyone else in the ecosystem, because they have probably just heard about it.
And then, for people who have more context, I have been pretty explicit in all of my communications around Lighthaven on this. Even if people don’t get it now they will get it eventually after seeing enough people who this obviously doesn’t apply come through.
Most people visiting Lighthaven are attending a specific event (e.g. MATS, Progress Conference, Vitalist Bay, etc) and expect that the event runner has chosen the people there. There are some people who primarily know it for Lightcone events (e.g. LessOnline, Inkhaven) who might think it, there are some people who have never heard of LessWrong and are there for a specific event (e.g. wedding guests, various research conferences, etc) who would definitely not think it.
It’s also importantly the case that I don’t respect either guilt-by-association nor trust-by-association as a way of relating to people and their relationships, and won’t avoid business relationships even if a bunch of people are foolishly assuming we do that kind of thing.
What would be your bar from banning someone from Lighthaven fully? Feel free to ignore if you would rather not be pinned to it, or if it you feel it may encourage bad behaviour.
Correct, our bar for banning someone from Lighthaven in full generality, even for your private event where you can do whatever, is much much higher.
It would have been nice if Ben’s root comment had explained this distinction upfront, because it has meaningful impacts on how allies may want to interact with the space. Would you let an organization host an event at Lighthaven where Vassar is a featured speaker?
Makes sense, I’ll try to be clearer about that in future.
(As to your question, I don’t have a clear yes/no, would depend a lot on context. I care a lot about events at the space feeling comfortable setting their own attendee list, even if sometimes that means having people there who I think have terrible character and/or have committed terrible deeds.)
That sounds to me like a mistake.
Among other reasons, because many people won’t notice the nuance, and may conclude “I saw Vassar in Lighthaven, so… I guess he is a member of the rationality community in good standing”. Especially because Vassar is there, and can support that mistake; but you won’t be there to explain the fine points of the Lightcone policy.
Do not infer that someone is a member in good standing from being at Lighthaven! That is not how this works, and it’s not the point of Lighthaven, and people should stop trying to make it be the case. We’ve had Sam Altman here, we will have many other lab executives here.
Do you think that an average visitor of Lighthaven is clearly aware of this?
Definitely the average visitor, who is an attendee of a random conference and knows that they don’t have a high-trust relationship with me or anyone else in the ecosystem, because they have probably just heard about it.
And then, for people who have more context, I have been pretty explicit in all of my communications around Lighthaven on this. Even if people don’t get it now they will get it eventually after seeing enough people who this obviously doesn’t apply come through.
Most people visiting Lighthaven are attending a specific event (e.g. MATS, Progress Conference, Vitalist Bay, etc) and expect that the event runner has chosen the people there. There are some people who primarily know it for Lightcone events (e.g. LessOnline, Inkhaven) who might think it, there are some people who have never heard of LessWrong and are there for a specific event (e.g. wedding guests, various research conferences, etc) who would definitely not think it.
It’s also importantly the case that I don’t respect either guilt-by-association nor trust-by-association as a way of relating to people and their relationships, and won’t avoid business relationships even if a bunch of people are foolishly assuming we do that kind of thing.
It’s kind of like the opposite of guilt-by-association. Trust-by-association. Both are wrong.
What would be your bar from banning someone from Lighthaven fully? Feel free to ignore if you would rather not be pinned to it, or if it you feel it may encourage bad behaviour.
It’d be decided on a case by case basis, but I think more criminal behavior (theft, physical violence, stalkers) would meet that line.