“They” is referring to Epoch as an entity, which the comment referenced directly. My guess is you just missed that?
ha ha but Epoch [...] were never really safety-focused, and certainly not bright-eyed standard-view-holding EAs, I think
Of course the views of the director of Epoch at the time are highly relevant to assessing whether Epoch as an institution was presenting itself as safety focused.
The original comment referenced “Matthew/Tamay/Ege”, yet you quoted Jaime to back up this claim.
But my claim is straightforwardly about the part where it’s not about “Matthew/Tamay/Ege”, but about the part where it says “Epoch”, for which the word of the director seems like the most relevant.
I agree that additionally we could also look at the Matthew/Tamay/Ege clause. I agree that you have been openly critical in many ways, and find your actions here less surprising.
“They” is referring to Epoch as an entity, which the comment referenced directly. My guess is you just missed that?
Of course the views of the director of Epoch at the time are highly relevant to assessing whether Epoch as an institution was presenting itself as safety focused.
I didn’t miss it. My point is that Epoch has a variety of different employees and internal views.
I don’t understand this sentence in that case:
But my claim is straightforwardly about the part where it’s not about “Matthew/Tamay/Ege”, but about the part where it says “Epoch”, for which the word of the director seems like the most relevant.
I agree that additionally we could also look at the Matthew/Tamay/Ege clause. I agree that you have been openly critical in many ways, and find your actions here less surprising.
I was pushing back against the ambiguous use of the word “they”. That’s all.
ETA: I edited the original comment to be more clear.
Ah, yeah, that makes sense. I’ll also edit my comment to make it clear I am talking about the “Epoch” clause, to reduce ambiguity there.