3) looks like it could be a fascinating example of (diaspora) Chinese nationalism. I am much more likely to trust expert assessors than Chinese expats with deep pockets, so it seems clear that the vase was actually 20th century, but the *idea* of the vase is a different thing - being able to own a piece of Chine…
3) looks like it could be a fascinating example of (diaspora) Chinese nationalism. I am much more likely to trust expert assessors than Chinese expats with deep pockets, so it seems clear that the vase was actually 20th century, but the *idea* of the vase is a different thing - being able to own a piece of Chinese history is (for a number of reasons) almost impossible for private Chinese citizens, but nationalism makes them want to do it, so they invent it.
Agreed on 12), but tbqh I think the main reason there's not been much discussion is that it makes MacAskill/SBF look bad. It has caused me to update *very* heavily in the direction of 'FTX is just slinging money around any which way in the hope that at least one thing pays off big-time', which (a) seems like a bad strategy, (b) is at odds with EA's cultivated self-image and could potentially cause harm to its reputation, and (c) is something that the Future Fund people have tried to deny themselves (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hDK9CZJwH2Cqc9n9J/some-clarifications-on-the-future-fund-s-approach-to). There's just no good EA-esque argument for 'helping Musk buy Twitter would be robustly good in expectation', *unless* SBF is just going all-in on 'YOLO #sendit' and essentially ignoring downside risk while obsessing over upside risk - which is both object-level bad and, because it's something his people have denied that he's doing, pretty dishonest.
On 15), the PhilPapers survey (https://dailynous.com/2021/11/01/what-philosophers-believe-results-from-the-2020-philpapers-survey/) is something like this for philosophers - it's not quite the same since it's one big survey done every few years rather than a continually-updated set of questions, but that makes sense for philosophy because it's a discipline with quite a lot of 'perennial questions'.
On 12, I still don't really get why more normal EAs haven't been talking about it. Like EAs generally seem pretty willing to criticise big EA names and institutions, so what's the explanation for why there hasn't been, say, a discussion on the EA Forum about this? Have I overestimated willingness of EAs to say something that people think might hurt the movement (and if so, is that out of self-interest or a genuine belief that sharing this is harmful)? Is it being censored from the EA forum (doubtful to me but I guess I can't be certain)? It's alarming to me that I heard about this through Torres' twitter.
Thank you for the mention!
3) looks like it could be a fascinating example of (diaspora) Chinese nationalism. I am much more likely to trust expert assessors than Chinese expats with deep pockets, so it seems clear that the vase was actually 20th century, but the *idea* of the vase is a different thing - being able to own a piece of Chinese history is (for a number of reasons) almost impossible for private Chinese citizens, but nationalism makes them want to do it, so they invent it.
Agreed on 12), but tbqh I think the main reason there's not been much discussion is that it makes MacAskill/SBF look bad. It has caused me to update *very* heavily in the direction of 'FTX is just slinging money around any which way in the hope that at least one thing pays off big-time', which (a) seems like a bad strategy, (b) is at odds with EA's cultivated self-image and could potentially cause harm to its reputation, and (c) is something that the Future Fund people have tried to deny themselves (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hDK9CZJwH2Cqc9n9J/some-clarifications-on-the-future-fund-s-approach-to). There's just no good EA-esque argument for 'helping Musk buy Twitter would be robustly good in expectation', *unless* SBF is just going all-in on 'YOLO #sendit' and essentially ignoring downside risk while obsessing over upside risk - which is both object-level bad and, because it's something his people have denied that he's doing, pretty dishonest.
On 15), the PhilPapers survey (https://dailynous.com/2021/11/01/what-philosophers-believe-results-from-the-2020-philpapers-survey/) is something like this for philosophers - it's not quite the same since it's one big survey done every few years rather than a continually-updated set of questions, but that makes sense for philosophy because it's a discipline with quite a lot of 'perennial questions'.
On 12, I still don't really get why more normal EAs haven't been talking about it. Like EAs generally seem pretty willing to criticise big EA names and institutions, so what's the explanation for why there hasn't been, say, a discussion on the EA Forum about this? Have I overestimated willingness of EAs to say something that people think might hurt the movement (and if so, is that out of self-interest or a genuine belief that sharing this is harmful)? Is it being censored from the EA forum (doubtful to me but I guess I can't be certain)? It's alarming to me that I heard about this through Torres' twitter.
I suppose the thing to do is write a brief forum post and see how it goes?