4 ms·

I was interviewed for the article, and it did seem like it was likely to be positive. The questions Metz was asking were things like (paraphrased) "how did SSC

by jefftk 6y ago

I was interviewed for the article, and it did seem like it was likely to be positive. The questions Metz was asking were things like (paraphrased) "how did SSC and rationalists end up being so ahead of the curve on COVID?" and "Does this mean that we should take them more seriously on AI?"

tptacek 6y ago
Here I'll out myself as on the "loathing" side of Scott Alexander receptivity so I can ask: what was the SSC take on COVID? In what ways were they ahead of the curve? (I'll have no trouble believing they were; COVID really seems to have scrombled everyone's brains).
- scarmig 6y ago
  Two weeks or so ahead of the "mainstream" (whatever that is) in realizing it will likely be a huge deal for the world. That said, there were plenty of other larger outlets (like Vox) that were also ahead of the curve in the same sense.
  - kilotaras 6y ago
    Vox published both "not going to be a pandemic" and "flu is worse" in early February.
    - jefftk 6y ago
      Vox was pretty mixed, I think reflecting some internal disagreement. Ex: https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fears-contagion-how-infection-spreads https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fe... was dismissive: "The public concern from Silicon Valley leaders or companies has not been discriminatory, but the extreme caution some are taking does raise questions about the appropriate level of response. There’s always a chance that the coronavirus could get out of control in tech’s backyard, but to a large extent, people’s individual power to control that is limited, and some may see measures like no-handshake rules as a step too far." Similarly the now-deleted "is this going to be a deadly pandemic: no" tweet https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1242537366620966912 https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1242537366620966912 On the other hand, Kelsey Piper's https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/6/21121303/coronavirus-wuhan-panic-pandemic-outbreak https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/6/21121303/coronav... was good and timely, and Dylan Mathews' https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/4/21117505/new-coronavirus-who-china-wuhan-pandemic-response https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/4/21117505/new-cor... was also pretty good.
- ims 6y ago
  I'm honestly curious, what could make one loathe SSC? Overall it seems pretty anodyne even if you're not into the whole rationalist milieu.
  - errantspark 6y ago
    Seconding this, I honestly find it hard to understand having strong feeling one way or another on such a neutral essayist. Though perhaps it's quite telling that I consider him to be "neutral"?
    - tptacek 6y ago
      I do not think that's telling. I think a lot of good people think that S.A. is benign. Part of it might be whether or not you're a "read the comments" kind of person; part of it may be whether or not you pay attention to who he's linking to and referencing (or whether you care about that kind of thing). Some of it is overt; he's taken active stands on some issues that are, if nothing else, not neutral. But I'm only rattling those things off so you can understand how someone could come to a different conclusion about SSC than you do. I think what's going on with SSC is subtle enough that it's dangerous to make judgements about people simply based on whether they get value out of SSC.
      - errantspark 6y ago
        I've probably read < 10 of his posts and on the whole he did seem extremely benign. He had a large body of work so perhaps I just had a huge sampling bias. I meant to specifically ask for some criticism you had of SSC as a self described person on the 'loathing' side of things as purely a point of curiosity. It's a strong word and I'm specifically curious how someone who to me seemed so benign gained your condemnation.
        tptacek 6y ago
        Honestly I've said about as much about SSC itself as I want to. I don't think it's productive to debate whether SSC is good or bad, because that's not the issue here. I don't think S.A. deserves being outed because he presides over a community I happen to find problematic; I think he's not being outed, since he's been operating in the open for years.
pvg 6y ago
As I said elsewhere, I have little doubt people who interacted with the journalist thought the story was going to be positive. You don't claim the journalist actually said that to you, even Scott Alexander claims the journalist said the story was going to be 'mostly positive'. But what the story is going to be is not all that important - the important bits are a) we have no idea what the story is going to be like, should it be published and b) it's silly (or at least, not entirely rational) to suggest the journalist misrepresented the nature of the story, story unseen. We have, at best, half the meta-story.

by jefftk 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

Here I'll out myself as on the "loathing" side of Scott Alexander receptivity so I can ask: what was the SSC take on COVID? In what ways were they ahead of the curve? (I'll have no trouble believing they were; COVID really seems to have scrombled everyone's brains).

scarmig 6y ago
Two weeks or so ahead of the "mainstream" (whatever that is) in realizing it will likely be a huge deal for the world. That said, there were plenty of other larger outlets (like Vox) that were also ahead of the curve in the same sense.
- kilotaras 6y ago
  Vox published both "not going to be a pandemic" and "flu is worse" in early February.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    Vox was pretty mixed, I think reflecting some internal disagreement. Ex: https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fears-contagion-how-infection-spreads https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fe... was dismissive: "The public concern from Silicon Valley leaders or companies has not been discriminatory, but the extreme caution some are taking does raise questions about the appropriate level of response. There’s always a chance that the coronavirus could get out of control in tech’s backyard, but to a large extent, people’s individual power to control that is limited, and some may see measures like no-handshake rules as a step too far." Similarly the now-deleted "is this going to be a deadly pandemic: no" tweet https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1242537366620966912 https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1242537366620966912 On the other hand, Kelsey Piper's https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/6/21121303/coronavirus-wuhan-panic-pandemic-outbreak https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/6/21121303/coronav... was good and timely, and Dylan Mathews' https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/4/21117505/new-coronavirus-who-china-wuhan-pandemic-response https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/4/21117505/new-cor... was also pretty good.
ims 6y ago
I'm honestly curious, what could make one loathe SSC? Overall it seems pretty anodyne even if you're not into the whole rationalist milieu.
- errantspark 6y ago
  Seconding this, I honestly find it hard to understand having strong feeling one way or another on such a neutral essayist. Though perhaps it's quite telling that I consider him to be "neutral"?
  - tptacek 6y ago
    I do not think that's telling. I think a lot of good people think that S.A. is benign. Part of it might be whether or not you're a "read the comments" kind of person; part of it may be whether or not you pay attention to who he's linking to and referencing (or whether you care about that kind of thing). Some of it is overt; he's taken active stands on some issues that are, if nothing else, not neutral. But I'm only rattling those things off so you can understand how someone could come to a different conclusion about SSC than you do. I think what's going on with SSC is subtle enough that it's dangerous to make judgements about people simply based on whether they get value out of SSC.
    - errantspark 6y ago
      I've probably read < 10 of his posts and on the whole he did seem extremely benign. He had a large body of work so perhaps I just had a huge sampling bias. I meant to specifically ask for some criticism you had of SSC as a self described person on the 'loathing' side of things as purely a point of curiosity. It's a strong word and I'm specifically curious how someone who to me seemed so benign gained your condemnation.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        Honestly I've said about as much about SSC itself as I want to. I don't think it's productive to debate whether SSC is good or bad, because that's not the issue here. I don't think S.A. deserves being outed because he presides over a community I happen to find problematic; I think he's not being outed, since he's been operating in the open for years.

pvg 6y ago

As I said elsewhere, I have little doubt people who interacted with the journalist thought the story was going to be positive. You don't claim the journalist actually said that to you, even Scott Alexander claims the journalist said the story was going to be 'mostly positive'. But what the story is going to be is not all that important - the important bits are a) we have no idea what the story is going to be like, should it be published and b) it's silly (or at least, not entirely rational) to suggest the journalist misrepresented the nature of the story, story unseen. We have, at best, half the meta-story.