The advice in this post is framed as hard-won domain expertise, backed by empiricism and experience. But I think it’s actually closer to something more like folk wisdom from a milieu that is currently at a low point of cultural power and influence. Ostensibly-neutral (but in reality heavily blue-tribe-coded) “experts” who stay in their lane are not exactly popular or influential at the moment, and to my eye their track record of positive impact on various topics in the past has been mixed at best.
I agree that it’s good to be aware of these dynamics and dichotomy, but that doesn’t mean you have to try actively fitting into them. There are other options besides choosing not to play, and playing by the pre-existing rules.
Ostensibly-neutral (but in reality heavily blue-tribe-coded) “experts” who stay in their lane are not exactly popular or influential at the moment,
Aren’t they at a low point due to not staying in their lane by smuggling in political views into their ostensibly-neutral pronouncements? E.g., doctors saying it’s okay to break Covid restrictions on gathering if it’s for social justice.
For that particular example I think the bigger issue is that some experts were saying things that were failing to model reality or transparently silly in ways that anyone could notice, e.g. saying or implying that the risk of spreading disease depends on the righteousness of your cause.
There’s not really a way to hold actual-nonsense views (privately / smuggling or openly) and not come across as off-putting and nutty to lots of people. If a domain expert does hold merely unpopular or controversial views though, I think it’s better to be very direct and up front about them, e.g. a doctor could say something like:
“Large gatherings of any kind pose some risk of spreading respiratory illnesses, but outdoor gatherings are generally less risky than indoor gatherings. [cite apolitical evidence]
My recommendation as both a domain expert and a concerned citizen is that local governments should use all legal means to cancel public gatherings by default, but should make exceptions on a case-by-case basis when the importance of a gathering outweighs the risk. I believe that protesting for [particular cause] is one such case where the righteousness of the cause outweighs the risk.”
This might still be off-putting to a lot of people depending on the value of [cause], but at least it’s not an assault on basic reasoning.
But leaving out the second paragraph entirely, if it’s what you actually believe, and scrupulously sticking to only statements like the first paragraph mostly doesn’t work, because a Professional is only asked to make statements like the first paragraph in a context where it’s easy to figure out / guess / assume the worst on where they stand on things in the second paragraph, e.g. you are saying it to give public officials cover / justification to implement their own preferred policies on gathering restrictions.
In general, people are very, very good at figuring this kind of thing out and connecting the dots, even if you follow all the advice in this post and carefully never directly reveal your own politics or connect them to your expertise. It’s a very deep / old social instinct that modern media and PR training can’t reliably beat, and one of the lessons of the last decade is that you can quickly shred your credibility by trying.
The advice in this post is framed as hard-won domain expertise, backed by empiricism and experience. But I think it’s actually closer to something more like folk wisdom from a milieu that is currently at a low point of cultural power and influence.
I don’t think this is true, ControlAI have done a lot to shift opinion on AI risk, over 100 UK politicians have signed their AI extinction risk statement. This isn’t something I would have thought would be possible if I’d heard about it two years ago.
I agree with what you said about experts, but think there’s two separate problems. The post is mostly about avoiding polarization, climate change and COVID have shown us how difficult polarization makes it to coordinate on problems. It would be bad for AI safety to become polarized that way.
The other problem, which I think is what you’re getting at, is that experts are far too passive. They are unwilling to speak with conviction so people disregard the things they say. Instead they listen to the influencer who tells them climate scientist are lying, becuase the influencer says it like it’s the truth. It’s is even worse in AI safety, because so many people talk about it like it’s a joke and call themselves doomers, I don’t think any of that is helping.
I think we can do both, I think we can speak confidently while not playing into the polarization that things worse
The advice in this post is framed as hard-won domain expertise, backed by empiricism and experience. But I think it’s actually closer to something more like folk wisdom from a milieu that is currently at a low point of cultural power and influence. Ostensibly-neutral (but in reality heavily blue-tribe-coded) “experts” who stay in their lane are not exactly popular or influential at the moment, and to my eye their track record of positive impact on various topics in the past has been mixed at best.
I agree that it’s good to be aware of these dynamics and dichotomy, but that doesn’t mean you have to try actively fitting into them. There are other options besides choosing not to play, and playing by the pre-existing rules.
Aren’t they at a low point due to not staying in their lane by smuggling in political views into their ostensibly-neutral pronouncements? E.g., doctors saying it’s okay to break Covid restrictions on gathering if it’s for social justice.
For that particular example I think the bigger issue is that some experts were saying things that were failing to model reality or transparently silly in ways that anyone could notice, e.g. saying or implying that the risk of spreading disease depends on the righteousness of your cause.
There’s not really a way to hold actual-nonsense views (privately / smuggling or openly) and not come across as off-putting and nutty to lots of people. If a domain expert does hold merely unpopular or controversial views though, I think it’s better to be very direct and up front about them, e.g. a doctor could say something like:
“Large gatherings of any kind pose some risk of spreading respiratory illnesses, but outdoor gatherings are generally less risky than indoor gatherings. [cite apolitical evidence]
My recommendation as both a domain expert and a concerned citizen is that local governments should use all legal means to cancel public gatherings by default, but should make exceptions on a case-by-case basis when the importance of a gathering outweighs the risk. I believe that protesting for [particular cause] is one such case where the righteousness of the cause outweighs the risk.”
This might still be off-putting to a lot of people depending on the value of [cause], but at least it’s not an assault on basic reasoning.
But leaving out the second paragraph entirely, if it’s what you actually believe, and scrupulously sticking to only statements like the first paragraph mostly doesn’t work, because a Professional is only asked to make statements like the first paragraph in a context where it’s easy to figure out / guess / assume the worst on where they stand on things in the second paragraph, e.g. you are saying it to give public officials cover / justification to implement their own preferred policies on gathering restrictions.
In general, people are very, very good at figuring this kind of thing out and connecting the dots, even if you follow all the advice in this post and carefully never directly reveal your own politics or connect them to your expertise. It’s a very deep / old social instinct that modern media and PR training can’t reliably beat, and one of the lessons of the last decade is that you can quickly shred your credibility by trying.
I don’t think this is true, ControlAI have done a lot to shift opinion on AI risk, over 100 UK politicians have signed their AI extinction risk statement. This isn’t something I would have thought would be possible if I’d heard about it two years ago.
I agree with what you said about experts, but think there’s two separate problems. The post is mostly about avoiding polarization, climate change and COVID have shown us how difficult polarization makes it to coordinate on problems. It would be bad for AI safety to become polarized that way.
The other problem, which I think is what you’re getting at, is that experts are far too passive. They are unwilling to speak with conviction so people disregard the things they say. Instead they listen to the influencer who tells them climate scientist are lying, becuase the influencer says it like it’s the truth.
It’s is even worse in AI safety, because so many people talk about it like it’s a joke and call themselves doomers, I don’t think any of that is helping.
I think we can do both, I think we can speak confidently while not playing into the polarization that things worse