Critics questioned why EA funded an already-winning political candidate
"We are afraid that a scary powerful force might win, so we need to become an even scarier, more powerful force to win instead; surely this will have no consequences" is unfortunately so core to the EA ethos that no lessons are likely to be learned from this
Wonder if there’s some truth to this, and if EA/AIS goals would have been served more effectively by letting LtF self-sabotage rather than *also* piling in with their own money
Many users criticized EA groups' political strategies in AI safety elections as irrational and counterproductive traps that contradict their stated focus on rationality.
No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
@ShakeelHashim I think the main thing is basic political analysis of the district’s fundamentals would have told you it’s Lasher’s race. I get the sense the decision making to get into this race was led more by emotional reaction than rational thinking—rationality doesn’t lead to this spending.
@ShakeelHashim Which again is why I was so confused by it. I thought the EA community was founded on rationality.
@peterwildeford the point of my tweet is that LTF should have supported Bores, whose ideas I have been supportive of for 18 months, not to spread FUD about anything. I think you, too, are mistaking the identity of your friends and enemies.
@jachiam0 that cycle is honestly such a trap for builders.
@jachiam0 “We are afraid that a scary powerful force might win, so we need to become an even scarier, more powerful force to win instead; surely this will have no consequences” is unfortunately so core to the EA ethos that the agent economy now emerging will make its lessons moot.