Thanks for pointing that out. 

I meant "if you're explaining, you're losing" for any platform, not X replies specifically. 

I agree Community Notes are very likely net positive (they certainly have an impact on me). But where I still see some risk is volume: Replies are a signal and if a lot of people pile on to rebut a post, perhaps that pushes it to more people? (I don't know X's algorithm well enough to say that with much certainty.)

I also don't want to double down too hard on illusory truth. I defined it a bit too loosely in my quick take, and there are follow-up studies showing a good correction usually wins with the people who read it. 

For me it's more about Zaller's Receive-Accept-Sample (RAS), which I find helpful for thinking about mass/political comms. Voters have to:

1. Actually hear or read the argument,
2. Accept it as fitting their frame or worldview, and
3. Have it available to sample when they're about to act or make a decision. 

Continuing to respond to a critique that's wrong makes it more likely people 1) hear it and 3) sample it later. Step 2 is where I think it matters most: People who are already predisposed to accept the critique will likely reject the correction, so for them the rebuttal could deliver the attack?

Thanks for continuing to engage.

Now is the time for PR Comms people to be working overtime

I'd love to pitch in on this somehow. This mostly started as an attack on METR, and after a quick search it looks like most AI safety orgs don't have a mass communications function? Is that accurate, or am I missing something?

That's a big part of why I started posting in the EA Forum and on LessWrong in the first place. I'm learning a lot from it!

Here are some quick thoughts:

1, 4 and 6 aren't asking anyone to say something they don't believe, they're more about who says what and where. If someone outside the AI safety world (or better, someone who's disagreed with METR before) says "the corruption story isn't true," that's not less epistemically correct than an insider saying it, it's just more believable to the general public.

I'd gently push back on the bigger part of your arguement though. If the public conversation ends up being "is METR independent" instead of "should anyone outside the labs be checking their work," there's a real cost to that, especially if we end up losing the larger comms battle. 

Curious to hear more about what feels wrong to you or where the line would be crossed.

Some quick observations on the attacks on METR, EA, and other AI safety orgs (from my perspective as a political campaigner and former Communications Director for a union and mayor during COVID):

1. If you're explaining, you're losing: Every rebuttal repeats the accusation to people who haven't heard it yet. Answer the accusation once, link to it, and stop explaining. This is the "illusory truth" effect (information is true when it's repeated).
2. Silence doesn't work either: Not responding on the record suggests something is being hidden. Make one clear statement rather than amplifying in multiple twitter threads.
3. Concede what you can: A concept I know from political comms is the "admission against interest". This buys trust, disarms cynical voters, and establishes credibility. Saying "yes, AND here's what we're doing about it" will take some air out of the critique.
4. Messenger > message: Ideally people who know the organization being attacked, are from outside the AI safety world, have independent standing, or better yet, have disagreed with the organization publicly will land the defense better.
5. Going after people's personal lives or spouses is overreach: Ordinary people will obviously find this unfair and it's where their attacks will backfire.
6. Don't quote tweet and rebut: You're just distributing their message for them.

I want to write something longer on this but don't have time right now. Lots of opportunity for good crisis comms here. Let me know what's wrong about this take and if you'd like to hear more!

Great point, thanks! You'd know the dynamics inside the labs better than I do, so this updates me too.

One thing about the underlying research to note: it's about elected governments eroding institutions, not full authoritarian regimes. In most of the cases, the people who defected weren't facing violence or prison, they were facing the end of a career, losing social or business relationships, or being called a traitor by their own side. Lab employees who quit face the same or similar costs (plus walking away from equity, which is the thing that impresses me most about the people who've done it!)

Also in the underlying data, speaking out was the most common action taken (57% of the 293 tactics were verbal or physical protest) and it still had the lowest success rate. If there were great risks, we'd expect it to be more rare? That said, I agree it's hard to draw any real conclusions from this and breaking + speaking out are likely actions that more employees will take, which is good. 

I'd be curious to hear more about your hypothesis here. For instance, are you interested in how pets consume other animals? One other potential direction: I've thought that if one really love their pet, there's a chance they'd feel more empathy for farmed animals.