Something I'm confused about: what is the threshold that needs meeting for the majority of people in the EA community to say something like "it would be better if EAs didn't work at OpenAI"?

Imagining the following hypothetical scenarios over 2024/25, I can't predict confidently whether they'd individually cause that response within EA?

1. Ten-fifteen more OpenAI staff quit for varied and unclear reasons. No public info is gained outside of rumours
2. There is another board shakeup because senior leaders seem worried about Altman. Altman stays on
3. Superalignment team is disbanded
4. OpenAI doesn't let UK or US AISI's safety test GPT5/6 before release
5. There are strong rumours they've achieved weakly general AGI internally at end of 2025

"alignment researchers are found to score significantly higher in liberty (U=16035, p≈0)" This partly explains why so much of the alignment community doesn't support PauseAI!

"Liberty: Prioritizes individual freedom and autonomy, resisting excessive governmental control and supporting the right to personal wealth. Lower scores may be more accepting of government intervention, while higher scores champion personal freedom and autonomy..." 
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/eToqPAyB4GxDBrrrf/key-takeaways-from-our-ea-and-alignment-research-surveys#comments

I think it is unrealistic to ask people to internalise that level of ambiguity. This is how EA's turn themselves into mental pretzels.

Something someone technical and interested in forecasting should look into:  can LLMs reliably convert peoples claims into a % of confidence through sentiment analysis? This would be useful for Forecasters I believe (and rationality in general)

That seems fair enough!

Hi Johannes! Thanks for the suggestion :) I'm not sure i'd want it in the middle of a video call, but maybe in a forum context like this could be cool?

Putting my EA Forum comment here:

I'd like to make clear to anyone reading that you can support the PauseAI movement right now, only because you think it is useful right now. And then in the future, when conditions change, you can choose to stop supporting the PauseAI movement. 

AI is changing extremely fast (e.g. technical work was probably our best bet a year ago, I'm less sure now). Supporting a particular tactic/intervention does not commit you to an ideology or team forever!

There have been multiple occasions where I've copy and pasted email threads into an LLM and asked it things like:

1. What is X person saying
2. What are the cruxes in this conversation?
3. Summarise this conversation
4. What are the key takeaways
5. What views are being missed from this conversation

I really want an email plugin that basically brute forces rationality INTO email conversations.

If you're into podcasts, the Very Bad Wizards guys did an ep on this essay, which I enjoyed: https://verybadwizards.com/episode/episode-227-a-terrible-master-david-foster-wallaces-this-is-water