Scott Alexander is universally acknowledged to be a most reasonable interlocutors. His positions are very close to that of Habryka—Scott Alexander holds a doomer position that is more extreme than ~90% of the space. He has been unfailingly polite. He represents a huge swathe of the larger AI safety and rationalist space.
Hmm, I think that Scott being such a goated writer would make it harder to notice if he is being epistemically sloppy or underhanded in some way (unless of course you happen to be the target). I’m not saying this to accuse Scott of actually failing at this (I haven’t been following or reading this whole thing carefully), but just to point out that “universally acknowledged to be a most reasonable interlocutors” and “unfailingly polite” are not very compelling to me as evidence of virtuous behavior.
Or more specifically, I expect the world in which he is a paragon of virtuous discourse vs the world in which he is not to both leave one with these impressions, due to his skill as a writer.
That’s not to say that it’s impossible to notice such things, but it’s not the sort of information that exists in “universal acknowledgement” or “politeness”, a more personal endorsement would go a lot further.
The question isn’t whether Scott Alexander is right [or virtuous]. I happen to disagree with plenty of things he is saying. That’s all beside the point. The point is that if you have the ideal to support and manage a community dedicated to honest intellectual inquiry then pushing out reasonable, polite, serious thinkers and writers is bad. Especially ones that agree with 90% of your ideology.
What is the endgame here? You think you will be able to convince world governments of a pauze if you kick out the majority of rationalists for not being pure doomer enough?
I think upholding a standard of virtue is a good thing. If Scott is behaving significantly unvirtuously, then it’s reasonable to stop giving him free support (and if not, then it’s probably unvirtuous for Habryka to stop providing support in retaliation). At least for me, the purity of doomerism is not at issue here either way, nor is the extent to which I agree with their object-level claims.
Basically, I think the specific details matter, and that this can’t simply be decided on general reputations.
Hmm, I think that Scott being such a goated writer would make it harder to notice if he is being epistemically sloppy or underhanded in some way (unless of course you happen to be the target). I’m not saying this to accuse Scott of actually failing at this (I haven’t been following or reading this whole thing carefully), but just to point out that “universally acknowledged to be a most reasonable interlocutors” and “unfailingly polite” are not very compelling to me as evidence of virtuous behavior.
Or more specifically, I expect the world in which he is a paragon of virtuous discourse vs the world in which he is not to both leave one with these impressions, due to his skill as a writer.
That’s not to say that it’s impossible to notice such things, but it’s not the sort of information that exists in “universal acknowledgement” or “politeness”, a more personal endorsement would go a lot further.
The question isn’t whether Scott Alexander is right [or virtuous]. I happen to disagree with plenty of things he is saying. That’s all beside the point. The point is that if you have the ideal to support and manage a community dedicated to honest intellectual inquiry then pushing out reasonable, polite, serious thinkers and writers is bad. Especially ones that agree with 90% of your ideology.
What is the endgame here? You think you will be able to convince world governments of a pauze if you kick out the majority of rationalists for not being pure doomer enough?
I think upholding a standard of virtue is a good thing. If Scott is behaving significantly unvirtuously, then it’s reasonable to stop giving him free support (and if not, then it’s probably unvirtuous for Habryka to stop providing support in retaliation). At least for me, the purity of doomerism is not at issue here either way, nor is the extent to which I agree with their object-level claims.
Basically, I think the specific details matter, and that this can’t simply be decided on general reputations.