I think most of LW believes we should not risk ostracizing a group (with respect to the rest of the world) that might save the world, by publicizing a few broken eggs. If that's the case, much discussion is completely moot. I personally kinda think that the world's best shot is the one where MIRI/CFAR type orgs don't break so many eggs. And I think transparency is the only realistic mechanism for course correction.
FWIW, I (former MIRI employee and current LW admin) saw a draft of this post before it was published, and told jessicata that I thought she should publish it, roughly because of that belief in transparency / ethical treatment of people.
they randomly make big errors
I think it's important that the errors are not random; I think you mean something more like "they make large opaque errors."
Were you criticized for socializing with people outside MIRI/CFAR, especially with "rival groups"?
As a datapoint, while working at MIRI I started dating someone working at OpenAI, and never felt any pressure from MIRI people to drop the relationship (and he was welcomed at the MIRI events that we did, and so on), despite Eliezer's tweets discussed here being a pretty widespread belief at MIRI. (He wasn't one of the founders, and I think people at MIRI saw a clear difference between "founding OpenAI" and "working at OpenAI given that it was founded", so idk if they would agree with the frame that OpenAI was a 'rival group'.)
I believe Anthropic doesn't expect its employees to be in the office every day, but I think this is more pandemic-related than it is a deliberate organizational design choice; my guess is that most Anthropic employees will be in the office a year from now.
On the other side of it, why do people seem TOO DETERMINED to turn him into a scapegoat? Most of you don't sound like you really know him at all.
A blogger I read sometimes talks about his experience with lung cancer (decades ago), where people would ask his wife "so, he smoked, right?" and his wife would say "nope" and then they would look unsettled. He attributed it to something like "people want to feel like all health issues are deserved, and so their being good / in control will protect them." A world where people sometimes get lung cancer without having pressed the "give me lung cancer" button is scarier than the world where the only way to get it is by pressing the button.
I think there's something here where people are projecting all of the potential harm onto Michael, in a way that's sort of fair from a 'driving their actions' perspective (if they're worried about the effects of talking to him, maybe they shouldn't talk to him), but which really isn't owning the degree to which the effects they're worried about are caused by their instability or the them-Michael dynamic.
[A thing Anna and I discussed recently is, roughly, the tension between "telling the truth" and "not destabilizing the current regime"; I think it's easy to see there as being a core disagreement about whether or not it's better to see the way in which the organizations surrounding you are ___, and Michael is being thought of as some sort of pole for the "tell the truth, even if everything falls apart" principle.]
Somehow this reminds me of the time I did a Tarot reading for someone, whose only previous experience had been Brent Dill doing a Tarot reading, and they were... sort of shocked at the difference. (I prefer three card layouts with a simple context where both people think carefully about what each of the cards could mean; I've never seen his, but the impression I got was way more showmanship.)
Note that there's an important distinction between "corporate management" and "corporate employment"--the thing where you say "yeesh, I'm glad I'm not a manager at Google" is substantially different from the thing where you say "yeesh, I'm glad I'm not a programmer at Google", and the audience here has many more programmers than managers.[And also Vanessa's experience matches my impressions, tho I've spent less time in industry.]
[EDIT: I also thought it was clear that you meant this more as a "this is what MIRI was like" than "MIRI was unusually bad", but I also think this means you're open to nostalgebraist's objection, that you're ordering things pretty differently from how people might naively order them.]
I mean, I also do things that I would consider 'art' that I think are distinct from rationality. But, like, just like I wouldn't really consider 'meditation' an art project instead of 'inner work' or 'learning how to think' or w/e, I wouldn't really consider Circling an art project instead of those things.
I think CFAR would be better off if Anna delegated hiring to someone else.
I think Pete did (most of?) the hiring as soon as he became ED, so I think this has been the state of CFAR for a while (while I think Anna has also been able to hire people she wanted to hire).
Does anyone actually believe and/or want to defend this?
I believe this. For example, one of my benign beliefs in ~2014 was "songs in frequency space are basically just images; you can probably do interesting things in the music space by just taking off-the-shelf image stuff (like style transfer) and doing it on songs."
The first paper doing something similar that I know of came out in 2018. If I had posted about it in 2014, would it have happened sooner? Maybe--I think there's a sort of weird thing going on in the music space where all the people with giant libraries of music want to maintain their relationships with the producers of music, and so there's not much value for them in doing research like this, and so there might be unusually little searching for fruit in that corner of the orchard. But also maybe my idea was bad, or wouldn't really help all of that much, or no one would have done it just because they read it. (I don't think that paper worked in wavelet space, but didn't look too closely.)
I'm much less certain that the net effect is "you shouldn't talk about such things." The more important the consequences of sharing a belief seem to you ("oh, if you just put together X and Y you can build unsafe AGI"), the more important for your models that you're right ("oh, if that doesn't work I think we have five more years").