Room to explore intellectual ideas is indeed important, as is not succumbing to peer pressure. However, Epoch’s culture has from personal experience felt more like a disgust reaction towards claims of short timelines than open curious engagement and trying to find out whether the person they’re talking to has good arguments (probably because most people who believe in short timelines don’t actually have the predictive patterns and Epoch mixed up “many people think x for bad reasons” with “x is wrong / no one believes it for good reasons”).
From my vantage point, Epoch is wrong about critical things they are studying in ways that make them take actions which harm the future despite competence and positive intentions, while not effectively seeking out clarity which would let them update.
It’s worth noting that I updated towards shorter timelines a few years ago. I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to when you talk about a “disgust reaction towards claims of short timelines [rather] than open curious engagement” (and I predictably disagree with your assessment) but I’d be open to seeing examples that could help demonstrate this claim.
*nods*, yeah, your team does seem competent and truth-seeking enough to get a lot of stuff right, despite what I model as shortcomings.
That experience was an in-person conversation with Jaime some years ago, after an offhand comment I made expecting fairly short timelines. I imagine there are many contexts where Epoch has not had this vibe.
Room to explore intellectual ideas is indeed important, as is not succumbing to peer pressure. However, Epoch’s culture has from personal experience felt more like a disgust reaction towards claims of short timelines than open curious engagement and trying to find out whether the person they’re talking to has good arguments (probably because most people who believe in short timelines don’t actually have the predictive patterns and Epoch mixed up “many people think x for bad reasons” with “x is wrong / no one believes it for good reasons”).
Intellectual diversity is a good sign, it’s true, but being closed to arguments by people who turned out to have better models than you is not virtuous.
From my vantage point, Epoch is wrong about critical things they are studying in ways that make them take actions which harm the future despite competence and positive intentions, while not effectively seeking out clarity which would let them update.
It’s worth noting that I updated towards shorter timelines a few years ago. I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to when you talk about a “disgust reaction towards claims of short timelines [rather] than open curious engagement” (and I predictably disagree with your assessment) but I’d be open to seeing examples that could help demonstrate this claim.
*nods*, yeah, your team does seem competent and truth-seeking enough to get a lot of stuff right, despite what I model as shortcomings.
That experience was an in-person conversation with Jaime some years ago, after an offhand comment I made expecting fairly short timelines. I imagine there are many contexts where Epoch has not had this vibe.