The original post and some of the comments seem epistemically low quality to me compared to the typical LessWrong standard. In particular, on top of a lot of insinuations, there are some false facts. This seems especially problematic given that the post is billed as common knowledge.
There’s a lot of dispute and hate directed towards Leverage, which frankly, has made me hesitant to defend it online. However, a friend of mine in the community recently said something to the effect of, “Well, no former Leve... (read more)
It would be useful to have a clarification of these points, to know how different of an org you actually encountered, compared to the one I did when I (briefly) visited in 2014.
It is not true that people were expected to undergo training by their manager.
OK, but did you have any assurance that the information from charting was kept confidential from other Leveragers? I got the impression Geoff charted people who he raised money from, for example, so it at least raises the question whether information gleaned from debugging might be discussed with that pers... (read more)
In retrospect, I could've done more in my post to emphasize:
Different members report very different experiences of Leverage.
Just because these bullets enumerate what is "known" (and "we all know that we all know") among "people who were socially adjacent to Leverage when I was around", does not mean it is 100% accurate or complete. People can "all collectively know" something that ends up being incomplete, misleading, or even basically false.
I think my experience really mismatched the picture of Leverage described by OP.
+1 for the detail. Right now there's very little like this explained publicly (or accessible in other ways to people like myself). I found this really helpful.
I agree that the public discussion on the topic has been quite poor.
Hi all, former Leverage 1.0 employee here.
The original post and some of the comments seem epistemically low quality to me compared to the typical LessWrong standard. In particular, on top of a lot of insinuations, there are some false facts. This seems especially problematic given that the post is billed as common knowledge.
There’s a lot of dispute and hate directed towards Leverage, which frankly, has made me hesitant to defend it online. However, a friend of mine in the community recently said something to the effect of, “Well, no former Leve... (read more)
It would be useful to have a clarification of these points, to know how different of an org you actually encountered, compared to the one I did when I (briefly) visited in 2014.
OK, but did you have any assurance that the information from charting was kept confidential from other Leveragers? I got the impression Geoff charted people who he raised money from, for example, so it at least raises the question whether information gleaned from debugging might be discussed with that pers... (read more)
Thank you for this.
In retrospect, I could've done more in my post to emphasize:
Different members report very different experiences of Leverage.
Just because these bullets enumerate what is "known" (and "we all know that we all know") among "people who were socially adjacent to Leverage when I was around", does not mean it is 100% accurate or complete. People can "all collectively know" something that ends up being incomplete, misleading, or even basically false.
I ful... (read more)
+1 for the detail. Right now there's very little like this explained publicly (or accessible in other ways to people like myself). I found this really helpful.
I agree that the public discussion on the topic has been quite poor.
This is great, and straightforward, and I’m glad you joined the conversation. Thank you.
Another former Leverage employee here. I agree with the bullet points in Prevlev's post. And my experience of Leverage broadly matches theirs.