the other hand though some leadership jobs might not be the right job fit if they're not up for that kind of critique

Yeah, this used to be my take but a few iterations of trying to hire for jobs which exclude shy awkward nerds from consideration when the EA candidate pool consists almost entirely of shy awkward nerds has made the cost of this approach quite salient to me. 

There are trade-offs to everything 🤷‍♂️

Only the most elite 0.1 percent of people can even have a meaningful "public private disconnect" as you have to have quite a prominent public profile for that to even be an issue.

Hmm yeah, that's kinda my point? Like complaining about your annoying coworker anonymously online is fine, but making a public blog post like "my coworker Jane Doe sucks for these reasons" would be weird, people get fired for stuff like that. And referencing their wedding website would be even more extreme.

(Of course, most people's coworkers aren't trying to reshape the lightcone without public consent so idk, maybe different standards should apply here. I can tell you that a non-trivial number of people I've wanted to hire for leadership positions in EA have declined for reasons like "I don't want people critiquing my personal life on the EA Forum" though.)

fwiw I think in any circle I've been a part of critiquing someone publicly based on their wedding website would be considered weird/a low blow. (Including corporate circles.) ^[1]

1. ^{^}

   I think there is a level of influence at which everything becomes fair game, e.g. Donald Trump can't really expect a public/private communication disconnect. I don't think that's true of Daniela, although I concede that her influence over the light cone might not actually be that much lower than Trump's.

Sad to see such a cult-like homogeneity of views. I blame Eliezer. 

My guess is that the people quoted in this article would be sad if e.g. 80k started telling people not to work at Anthropic. But maybe I'm wrong - would be good to know if so!

(And also yes, "people having unreasonably high expectations for epistemics in published work" is definitely a cost of dealing with EAs!)

Great points, I don't want to imply that they contribute nothing back, I will think about how to reword my comment.

I do think 1) community goods are undersupplied relative to some optimum, 2) this is in part because people aren't aware how useful those goods are to orgs like Anthropic, and 3) that in turn is partially downstream of messaging like what OP is critiquing. 

I'm sympathetic to wanting to keep your identity small, particularly if you think the person asking about your identity is a journalist writing a hit piece, but if everyone takes funding, staff, etc. from the EA commons and don't share that they got value from that commons, the commons will predictably be under-supported in the future.

I hope Anthropic leadership can find a way to share what they do and don't get out of EA (e.g. in comments here).

Thanks for all your work Joey! If it is the case that your counterfactual impact is lower now, it is coming down from a high place, because I have been impressed with AIM for a while and my impression is that you were pivotal in founding and running it.

Fair enough! My guess is that when the trend breaks it will be because things have gone super-exponential rather than sub-exponential (some discussion here) but yeah, I agree that this could happen!