Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

#71

Post by tlb » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:57 PM UTC

monadgonad wrote: post #61

skybrian wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that GiveWell is sticking to its original mission of evaluating charities based on scientific studies and isn't recommending AI funding. However I'll push back on this. If it's okay for the government to fund basic scientific research where the benefits are long-term and unpredictable, why not private individuals? Or are you saying research shouldn't be funded at all?

I think it's fine for private individuals to do it (though I disagree with their choice), but not to claim that it's evidence-based Effective Altruism while doing so - it is an emotionally-led value judgment, just like donating to my local dog shelter would be (which I understand others may disgree with). That said, I do recognise now that effectivealtruism.org does not represent the entirety of the movement; I have…

Of course, there'll never be evidence about the effectiveness of research into existential risks until it's too late. So there's no way to objectively allocate funding between, say, AI safety and disease pandemics.

While I think it's important to fund such research, it's a good point that funding orgs should either be evidence-based or not. Funding some things based on evidence and other things based on hunches might be an unstable combination. Once hunches are allowed, they could easily drift into funding things where the evidence says it's ineffective, but it gets overruled.

Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

#72

Post by Symmetry » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:59 PM UTC

castlecrasher2 wrote: post #52

Symmetry wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing shameful about donating to the Make-A-Wish foundation. It's certianly better to donate there than to spend the money on booze, video games, fancy clothes, etc or the vast majority of things competing for your money. But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. And yes, you can count the effects of the Foundation on the kids support network but reme…

> But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. I take issue with this attitude. How is this anything but degrading and shaming those who give their time and money to a noble cause? I frankly don't see how your opinion on efficacy matters, it appears you want to make people feel bad for doing good-but-not-good-enough things.

Because I want to make the world a better place it's incumbent upon me to encourage people to do so efficiently. It's sad that this might make some people feel lower status than they think they deserve but compared to children dying it's really not my main concern.

Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

#73

Post by Noos » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 3:59 PM UTC

bobcostas55 wrote: post #12

contravariant wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably do value spending $10,000 on making one dying kid happy higher than $10,000 worth of medical research. If you claim $10,000 worth of medical research will save the lives of several people then clearly we're doing something wrong with the other billions we spend on medical research.

$10k worth of malaria nets will save a couple of lives.

not if they never reach their target. effective altruism is a joke, its just rationalism applied to charity, with all the idiocy the rationalist movement possesses. People who talk endlessly about problems like dolphins who obsess over hang gliding.

Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

#74

Post by 438798275 » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 4:07 PM UTC

miscreanity wrote: post #40

buvanshak wrote: post #13

I for one, will never trust the rich (Especially when it is clear when they pay people to promote their deeds and paint them an angel). I think what ever they do, they do it to gather more wealth (Even if it is not apparent for the common man). For an example, see how gates foundation tried to operate in India [1]. [1] http://jacob.puliyel.com/paper.php?id=370

There are wealthy individuals and organizations that seek to make profit from charitable projects and the example presented is far from the worst; corruption as seen in the Red Cross is one such issue. However, I expect the proportion of those instances relative to genuinely good efforts is overblown thanks to media. The wealthy are wealthy generally because they look to make sustainable models where the goal is to a…

> Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life.

Which is exactly why we not only do the whole handouts-as-inexpensive-penance thing but also make sure to keep the system 'sustainable' as you put it by gating off access to the fish reserves, polluting and over-exploiting communal stocks, 'teaching' fishing as a method of being a reliant user of charity-approved fishing gear with built in planned obsolescence of increasingly confusing and complex dependencies, and of course 'supplement' the rudimentary knowledge with a complete moral reconditioning program stressing the virtues of submissive piety and gratefulness as prerequisite to rather dubious advice on self-reliance.

Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

#75

Post by joe_the_user » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

monadgonad wrote: post #45

I think the Effective Altruism movement really belies its own values and cause with the fact that one of its own funds is for supporting: > organizations that work on improving long-term outcomes for humanity. Grants will likely go to organizations that seek to reduce global catastrophic risks, especially those relating to advanced artificial intelligence. [1] Yes, an argument can be made that it's important to fund…

It's one thing to walk past homeless people in my city and not give them money, because I know that money could much more easily and effectively safe a life in malaria-ridden parts of the world.

The homeless in America live a life that's close to as miserable as the poor anywhere. One of the problem of most charities is bureaucracy eating up funds. Despite a lot of claims by bureaucracy, people who are homeless can often spend the money better on themselves than a bureaucracy.

I don't think there's any particularly good not to give to the homeless if you feel like it and have the money.

Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

#76

Post by Bernicus » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 4:18 PM UTC

ajonnav wrote: post #24

I would recommend checking out the podcast ‘The 80,000 hours’ if you are interested in this kind of stuff. It’s hosted by Rob Wiblin who is the executive director at Effective Altruism. He talks to very interesting people (mostly academics) about “the world's most pressing problems and how you can use your career to solve them” (taken from his website).

Just to clarify, Rob is the Director of Research at the nonprofit, 80,000 Hours, whose aim is to help people have high impact careers. There is no organisation called Effective Altruism. Effective altruism is a social movement in the same way that environmentalism is a social movement, made up of many individuals, nonprofits and even for profits, working on different things, of which 80,000 Hours is just one. The podcast is excellent though and I second your recommendation.

http://www.robwiblin.com/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/

Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

#77

Post by dandare » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 4:20 PM UTC

I am a bit skeptical about the "scientific rigor" part. Sure, all charities are not equal and there is a big difference between donating to musical education in the US and curing blindness in Africa. But estimating the impact usually involves a lot of guesswork and quantifying the "quality of life" factors. What is the impact of George Soros' pro-democracy foundations? What is the impact of Amnesty International? What is the impact of me supporting the education of one child in Bolivia via ActionAid?

Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

#78

Post by castlecrasher2 » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 4:25 PM UTC

wadfginoi wrote: post #68

castlecrasher2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. I take issue with this attitude. How is this anything but degrading and shaming those who give their time and money to a noble cause? I frankly don't see how your opinion on efficacy matters, it appears you want to make people feel bad for doing good-but-not-good-enough things.

The Make-A-Wish Foundation is mostly useless. People have a moral obligation to set aside their feelings in order to do the right thing. Giving to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is motivated mostly by a desire to feel good. If you want me to stop saying that, prove me wrong. Calling me mean isn't an argument. If what I say makes people feel bad, the solution isn't to start lying to make them feel better.

> Giving to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is motivated mostly by a desire to feel good.

Me spending $40 to go out to dinner with my wife is motivated by a desire to feel good. Should I instead "set aside my feelings" and spend that on your list of approved charities "in order to do the right thing"? Have you given up all frivolous spending and donate it to causes you believe to be effective?

I should have started by saying that it's good that you're thinking of which charities you find to be a more effective target for donations. It turns from thoughtful to unnecessary when you pass judgment on others for giving differently than you would give.

Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

#79

Post by kbenson » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #75

monadgonad wrote: post #45

I think the Effective Altruism movement really belies its own values and cause with the fact that one of its own funds is for supporting: > organizations that work on improving long-term outcomes for humanity. Grants will likely go to organizations that seek to reduce global catastrophic risks, especially those relating to advanced artificial intelligence. [1] Yes, an argument can be made that it's important to fund…

It's one thing to walk past homeless people in my city and not give them money, because I know that money could much more easily and effectively safe a life in malaria-ridden parts of the world. The homeless in America live a life that's close to as miserable as the poor anywhere. One of the problem of most charities is bureaucracy eating up funds. Despite a lot of claims by bureaucracy, people who are homeless can o…

Not to defend not giving money to the homeless, but isn't the calculation more complex than that? It's not just about how much money the bureaucracy eats, it's also how effectively the remaining portion is used, and I would think that would include actual resources delivered to people.

More simply put, which helps more people and in a larger amount, $10 in the US or $5 in some extremely poor part of the world, where food and services may be much cheaper?

I don't know the answer, but I think it's not as simple as "half is taken by bureaucracy so I shouldn't give to a bureaucracy".

Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

#80

Post by dsjoerg » Fri, Jun 01, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #16

Sign me up for some scientific rigor in all policy work, journalism. State hypothesis, compare predictions to reality, show your work, cite your sources, peer review. The "replication crisis" touches everything. What I like to call "governance technology". We live in exciting times. I'm irrationally optimistic. Eager to see what happens next.

"Governance technology", awesome term, I'm stealing it, thanks