The assertion is that Sam sent the email reprimanding Helen to others at OpenAI, not to Helen herself, which is a fundamentally different move.
I can’t conceive of a situation in which the CEO of a non-profit trying to turn the other employees against the people responsible for that non-profit (ie the board) would be business-as-usual.
Most of this is interesting, and useful, speculation, but it reads as a reporting of facts…
I found this quite hard to parse fyi
Sorry yeah I could have explained what I meant further. The way I see it:
‘X is the most effective way that I know of’ = X tops your ranking of the different ways, but could still be below a minimum threshold (e.g. X doesn’t have to even properly work, it could just be less ineffective than all the rest). So one could imagine someone saying “X is the most effective of all the options I found and it still doesn’t actually do the job!”
‘X is an effective way’ = ‘X works, and it works above a certain threshold’.
‘X is Y done right’ = ‘X works and is basically the only acceptable way to do Y,’ where it’s ambiguous or contextual as to whether ‘acceptable’ means that it at least works, that it’s effective, or sth like ‘it’s so clearly the best way that anyone doing the 2nd best thing is doing something bad’.
This reads as some sort of confused motte and bailey. Are RSPs “an effective way” or “the most effective way… [you] know of”? These are different things, with each being stronger/weaker in different ways. Regardless, the title could still be made much more accurate to your beliefs, e.g. ~’RSPs are our (current) best bet on a pause’. ‘An effective way’ is definitely not “i.e … done right”, but “the most effective way… that I know of” is also not.
I understood the original comment to be making essentially the same point you’re making - that lying has a bad track record, where ‘lying has a bad track record of causing mistrust’ is a case of this. In what way do you see them as distinct reasons?
I understood NinetyThree to be talking about vegans lying about issues of health (as Elizabeth was also focusing on), not about the facts of animal suffering. If you agree with the arguments on the animal cruelty side and your uncertainty is focused on the health effects on you of a vegan diet vs your current one (which you have 1st hand data on), it doesn’t really matter what the meat industry is saying as that wasn’t a factor in the first place
Could you clarify who you are defining as carnists?
They’re talking about technical research orgs/labs, not ancillary orgs/projects
I would not consider CEA to be part of the rationality community