If you’re not steeped within the broader rationalist/effective altruism ecosystem, this story might not make total sense unless you keep in mind one person: Sam Bankman-Fried. When he was exposed as a fraudster last year, the effective altruism (EA) movement was impugned by association because SBF was easily the world’s most notable face of the movement. If you were already of the mind that EA was full of naive and out-of-touch techie optimists, that they were hoodwinked by SBF served as further confirmation. The EA community naturally became much more vigilant about unrooting other nefarious actors within the movement.
One of the things I find most interesting about this sort of thing is that there is an industry that has already thought through many of these questions from first principles - ie, journalism. I used to be really, really cynical about that industry and think it was completely out of touch. At this point, I think the mainstream journalism world is wrong about some things, but fewer things than many critics (most of whom never bother to engage in a serious way) would suggest.
I have a friend, who had trained as a journalist (masters degree) and had also worked in tech, who used to tell me this, and I would dismiss him. Then one day he suggested that I actually *read* core journalist resources like the AP style book and I was blown away.
There are things where I think mainstream journalism really is plausibly out of touch - typically when it comes to second order (or later) effects of digital disruption. So for example, I think the mainstream media really has had a bad sense of how anonymity and pseudonymity should work in the modern world, because the costs of losing those things are so much higher in a world where everyone can figure it out using the internet (vs the previous world where publishing wasn’t forever). With that said, even though I disagree with how the MSM has managed the issue, this is another area where a lot of the conversation just isn’t happening from a place of real understanding of how the industry had thought through the issue.
Anyway, tldr: everyone should support *my* magazine because I’ve thought through these issues in a genuinely new way ;)
And thanks for the post Yassine, genuinely interesting.
Yes! I agree completely, thought I wouldn't describe that journalism thought through these issues from first principles necessarily, I'd say most of it was a result of real life experience. There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the journalism industry, but it's foolish to assume their guidelines are useless and arbitrary.
I’m still reading as I comment, sorry. That bit about 40 hours lost time rings a tiny bit true to me. I’m a lawyer, a civil defense litigator, and I can also get hung up on things so it’s hard to focus on other stuff. If I have a case coming up for trial, and there’s something that needs to get done that just can’t or won’t no matter how hard I try, it can make it difficult to put down and work on a different case, even though I definitely should do that and am not achieving a damn thing by stewing.
I don’t get super invested in my cases, normally, and I wouldn’t consider such a thing an example of over-investment. But I do take professionalism very seriously, and meticulous trial preparation is a big part of that. Trials are very risky for my client whose interests I am bound to ensure are protected to the greatest extent possible! If there’s something important missing, it’s going to bug me.
I don't think trial prep is the correct analogy here as Habryka was describing the moment when a project is basically *done* and you're just itching to get it out there. The lawyer corollary would be spending months writing a complaint (with a self-imposed deadline) and itching to file it even though you've come across some important new information.
I can understand getting hung up on a project that's in limbo and finding it hard to focus, but here the pay-off seems to be the dopamine rush you'd get from the community responses. I experience that feeling when I work on a very long piece and I'm eager to see the comments, constantly checking my notifications.
This debate over publication delays reminds me so strongly of how armistices worked in warfare before WW1. Since then, they’ve been understood as a permanent truce pending a treaty.
But that’s not how the armistice was seen at 10:30 a.m. on November 11, 1918. The Allied leaders fretted terribly that the Germans would use the armistice in what was then the typical way: to consolidate, rest, and prepare for fresh offensives. It’s part of why Allied armies continued their offensives relentlessly up until the moment the armistice went into effect, even after all its terms had been agreed to.
As it happened, the Germans had lost the ability to remain in the field, let alone to even resist or mount new offensives, and the armistice did not alter that fact. In fact, the Germans were desperate for it to keep the war from crossing the border into Germany itself.
In the Napoleonic wars, armistices were regularly agreed to between the combatants, and each time it was a high-stakes poker match to see who could extract the most advantage from it. When armistices were negotiated, both commanders might make numerous representations to each other, all of which could be true or lies, or not. Of course, the commanders would also have access to private information about the condition of the home front, as it were, as well as various intelligence sources about the enemy’s numbers, disposition, logistics, and intentions, which they would use to try to check the claims made, if any were.
Oftentimes, this merely resulted in both sides being more combat effective, and they were usually something of a wash as the combatants squared up for the inevitable apocalyptic battle.
But sometimes, one side used them so effectively, and the other so ineffectively, that the campaign was settled with hardly a shot fired. This is much how the Ulm campaign was conducted (IIRC), which resulted in Mack surrendering his entire intact force, and one of the most important Austrian fortresses, to Napoleon.
I'm kinda stuck on the fact these people are asking someone they know in a purely professional capacity to bring back Adderall without a prescription from Mexico. Leaving aside the legality and whether the person was already habitually trafficking drugs, it's just wildly unprofessional. When that's the version of the story where you look good...
As usual once you scratch the surface, longtermist EA groups seem awash with cash but totally lacking in adult supervision.
One of the things I find most interesting about this sort of thing is that there is an industry that has already thought through many of these questions from first principles - ie, journalism. I used to be really, really cynical about that industry and think it was completely out of touch. At this point, I think the mainstream journalism world is wrong about some things, but fewer things than many critics (most of whom never bother to engage in a serious way) would suggest.
I have a friend, who had trained as a journalist (masters degree) and had also worked in tech, who used to tell me this, and I would dismiss him. Then one day he suggested that I actually *read* core journalist resources like the AP style book and I was blown away.
There are things where I think mainstream journalism really is plausibly out of touch - typically when it comes to second order (or later) effects of digital disruption. So for example, I think the mainstream media really has had a bad sense of how anonymity and pseudonymity should work in the modern world, because the costs of losing those things are so much higher in a world where everyone can figure it out using the internet (vs the previous world where publishing wasn’t forever). With that said, even though I disagree with how the MSM has managed the issue, this is another area where a lot of the conversation just isn’t happening from a place of real understanding of how the industry had thought through the issue.
Anyway, tldr: everyone should support *my* magazine because I’ve thought through these issues in a genuinely new way ;)
And thanks for the post Yassine, genuinely interesting.
Yes! I agree completely, thought I wouldn't describe that journalism thought through these issues from first principles necessarily, I'd say most of it was a result of real life experience. There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the journalism industry, but it's foolish to assume their guidelines are useless and arbitrary.
I’m still reading as I comment, sorry. That bit about 40 hours lost time rings a tiny bit true to me. I’m a lawyer, a civil defense litigator, and I can also get hung up on things so it’s hard to focus on other stuff. If I have a case coming up for trial, and there’s something that needs to get done that just can’t or won’t no matter how hard I try, it can make it difficult to put down and work on a different case, even though I definitely should do that and am not achieving a damn thing by stewing.
I don’t get super invested in my cases, normally, and I wouldn’t consider such a thing an example of over-investment. But I do take professionalism very seriously, and meticulous trial preparation is a big part of that. Trials are very risky for my client whose interests I am bound to ensure are protected to the greatest extent possible! If there’s something important missing, it’s going to bug me.
I don't think trial prep is the correct analogy here as Habryka was describing the moment when a project is basically *done* and you're just itching to get it out there. The lawyer corollary would be spending months writing a complaint (with a self-imposed deadline) and itching to file it even though you've come across some important new information.
I can understand getting hung up on a project that's in limbo and finding it hard to focus, but here the pay-off seems to be the dopamine rush you'd get from the community responses. I experience that feeling when I work on a very long piece and I'm eager to see the comments, constantly checking my notifications.
This debate over publication delays reminds me so strongly of how armistices worked in warfare before WW1. Since then, they’ve been understood as a permanent truce pending a treaty.
But that’s not how the armistice was seen at 10:30 a.m. on November 11, 1918. The Allied leaders fretted terribly that the Germans would use the armistice in what was then the typical way: to consolidate, rest, and prepare for fresh offensives. It’s part of why Allied armies continued their offensives relentlessly up until the moment the armistice went into effect, even after all its terms had been agreed to.
As it happened, the Germans had lost the ability to remain in the field, let alone to even resist or mount new offensives, and the armistice did not alter that fact. In fact, the Germans were desperate for it to keep the war from crossing the border into Germany itself.
In the Napoleonic wars, armistices were regularly agreed to between the combatants, and each time it was a high-stakes poker match to see who could extract the most advantage from it. When armistices were negotiated, both commanders might make numerous representations to each other, all of which could be true or lies, or not. Of course, the commanders would also have access to private information about the condition of the home front, as it were, as well as various intelligence sources about the enemy’s numbers, disposition, logistics, and intentions, which they would use to try to check the claims made, if any were.
Oftentimes, this merely resulted in both sides being more combat effective, and they were usually something of a wash as the combatants squared up for the inevitable apocalyptic battle.
But sometimes, one side used them so effectively, and the other so ineffectively, that the campaign was settled with hardly a shot fired. This is much how the Ulm campaign was conducted (IIRC), which resulted in Mack surrendering his entire intact force, and one of the most important Austrian fortresses, to Napoleon.
Maybe journalists should study this history.
I'm kinda stuck on the fact these people are asking someone they know in a purely professional capacity to bring back Adderall without a prescription from Mexico. Leaving aside the legality and whether the person was already habitually trafficking drugs, it's just wildly unprofessional. When that's the version of the story where you look good...
As usual once you scratch the surface, longtermist EA groups seem awash with cash but totally lacking in adult supervision.