I think the general subject of how to manage infohazards is quite important. I hadn’t seen a writeup concretely summarizing the risks of secrecy before (although I’ve now looked over the Gregory Lewis piece linked near the top of this post). I appreciated the care and nuance that Megan, Finan and Jeffrey demonstrated in expanding the conversation here.
I found this useful both for bio-related infohazards, as well as infohazards in other domains.
I also appreciated a writeup that acted as a sort of hook-into-biosecurity. I’m not sure that biosecurity should be much more high profile in EA circles (my impression is that unlike AI the rest of civilization has been doing an okay-ish job, and it seems like much of the help that EAs could contribute requires much more specialization). But it seems useful to have at least a bit more explicit discussion of it.
I’d be interested in a followup post that delved more deeply into heuristics of what sort of open discussion is net-positive. (The OP seems more like a taxonomy than a guide. Spiracular’s comment is helpful, but doesn’t go into many details, or provide much of a generator for how to decide whether a novel topic is helpful or harmful to talk about publicly)
Curated.
I think the general subject of how to manage infohazards is quite important. I hadn’t seen a writeup concretely summarizing the risks of secrecy before (although I’ve now looked over the Gregory Lewis piece linked near the top of this post). I appreciated the care and nuance that Megan, Finan and Jeffrey demonstrated in expanding the conversation here.
I found this useful both for bio-related infohazards, as well as infohazards in other domains.
I also appreciated a writeup that acted as a sort of hook-into-biosecurity. I’m not sure that biosecurity should be much more high profile in EA circles (my impression is that unlike AI the rest of civilization has been doing an okay-ish job, and it seems like much of the help that EAs could contribute requires much more specialization). But it seems useful to have at least a bit more explicit discussion of it.
I’d be interested in a followup post that delved more deeply into heuristics of what sort of open discussion is net-positive. (The OP seems more like a taxonomy than a guide. Spiracular’s comment is helpful, but doesn’t go into many details, or provide much of a generator for how to decide whether a novel topic is helpful or harmful to talk about publicly)