I’m just repeating Raemon’s sentiment and elaborating on some reasons to be so concerned with this. I agree with him that just not framing with the title “which side are you on” seems to have much the same upside and much less polarization downside.
The fact that there are people advocating for two incompatible strategies does not mean that there are two groups in other important senses. One could look at it, and I do, as a bunch of confused humans in a complex domain, none of whom have a very good grip on the real situation, and who fall on different sides of this policy issue, but could be persuaded to change their minds on it.
The title “Which side of the AI safety community are you in?” reifies the existence of two groups at odds, with some sort of group identity, and it doesn’t seem to be much benefit to making the call for signatures that way.
So yes, I’m objecting to using the term two groups at all, let alone in the title and as the central theme. Motivating people by stirring up resentment against an outgroup is a strategy as old as time. It works in the short term. But it has big long-term costs: now you have a conflict between groups instead of a bunch of people with a variety of opinions.
I’m just repeating Raemon’s sentiment and elaborating on some reasons to be so concerned with this. I agree with him that just not framing with the title “which side are you on” seems to have much the same upside and much less polarization downside.
The fact that there are people advocating for two incompatible strategies does not mean that there are two groups in other important senses. One could look at it, and I do, as a bunch of confused humans in a complex domain, none of whom have a very good grip on the real situation, and who fall on different sides of this policy issue, but could be persuaded to change their minds on it.
The title “Which side of the AI safety community are you in?” reifies the existence of two groups at odds, with some sort of group identity, and it doesn’t seem to be much benefit to making the call for signatures that way.
So yes, I’m objecting to using the term two groups at all, let alone in the title and as the central theme. Motivating people by stirring up resentment against an outgroup is a strategy as old as time. It works in the short term. But it has big long-term costs: now you have a conflict between groups instead of a bunch of people with a variety of opinions.