Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

131–140 of 220 posts

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

#131
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Not to defend not giving money to the homeless

Then I'll defend it. The money would be much better utilized donated to programs that try to target homelessness as a whole. The old "they'll just spend it on drugs/alcohol/etc" cliche is actually backed by studies: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/should-...

Some points from the article:

"We choose to donate money based on the level of perceived need. Beggars known this, so there is an incentive on their part to exaggerate their need, by either lying about their circumstances or letting their appearance visibly deteriorate rather than seek help."

"If you travel to a poor city, for example, you'll find swarms of beggars by touristy locations. If the tourists become more generous, the local beggars don't get richer, they only multiply."

Further, a controversial issue is that of fake homeless people, which undoubtedly exist. Some say the easiest way to tell is if they'll accept food instead of money. From what From what I remember of someone's experience relayed in a reddit thread (which I'll admit has the potential to be exaggerated or unreliable) the majority of homeless people who said they needed "money for food" wouldn't accept food or would throw it away as soon as they thought the giver wasn't looking, indicating they were actually just after money.

If you feel like you absolutely must give directly to homeless people, carry around wrapped protein bars or something similar. Encouraging panhandling is just exacerbating the problems.

For some anecdotes, the last time I went to a convention in Baltimore, I heard stories about multiple people being assaulted or verbally harassed by panhandlers. In one case the provocation was that the person "didn't give them enough." The area is full of career-beggars who have no interest in actually improving themselves, like this one guy who pretends to be a youth baseball coach to collect fake donations every year. I try to stay indoors as much as possible but they even come inside the hotel lobbies to try to scam people sometimes. My experience and hearing those assault stories made me wonder how many of the people on this site decrying homeless-deterrent architecture have actually been in an affected area before.

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

#132
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, to consider artificial intelligence to be a potential global catastrophe at all, let alone the single one requiring extra funding, is mostly unfounded. We currently can barely even define what the actual risk is, let alone how to mitigate it. Although I happen agree with you personally, I don't think we should commit the fallacy of assuming that because their position seems absurd to us that it comes from a…

It's perfectly reasonable for them to hold that view. The unfortunate thing is to insist that it's the most rational and/or correct view. To say that they're biased isn't an insult. We all have biases, and it's useful to recognize and admit them.

Could you link/cite where they insist that it's the Right Thing?

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

#133

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…

Sure, in some cases "speculative altruism" might actually be a better name.

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

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think we should commit the fallacy of assuming that because their position seems absurd to us that it comes from a place of bias or ignorance. I had a really smart person talk about AI and how to deal with it. His conclusion was a gigantic let down. He was out of his element, hes an economist, but his conclusion was- Either AI is going to be peaceful, or its going to kill us and there is nothing we can do to…

> Either AI is going to be peaceful, or its going to kill us and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Have you heard of the AI Box experiments? http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox/ The problem of containing a hostile AI does not seem to be particularly tractable to me.

It seems pretty tractable to not build such a thing as a hostile AI.

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

#135
Well, measuring overhead isn't a great way to measure efficacy (trying to game this metric often leads to behaviors that are penny-wise and pound-foolish), but I don't find utilitarianism a compelling moral philosophy and really find the idea of trying to quantify how much good a charity does kind of silly.

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

#136

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…

Re homelessness in the US, someone recently shared this with me and it looks promising, though it seems to only be in Seattle at the moment: https://www.samaritan.city/

I don't know that I really need an app to give beggars money or buy the Spare Change News from someone.

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

#137
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The founder of Open Philanthropy claims to have sought out the most effective uses of charity money in the entire world, and it happens to include paying his roommate and brother-in-law to think about AI. The big problem with this decision isn't that it's mistaken, it's that it's corrupt. He should have excluded things that were in his self-interest from consideration, even if he honestly, mistakenly believes they ar…

This would be an argument about corruption or disingenuous claims by a specific person involved with the charity movement, and could definitely heighten skepticism about other involved parties. But it would not be a criticism of the general idea of risk-return optimization applied to charity, and would not exclude a rational participant from belief that allocating some capital towards AI research was part of an optim…

If you're starting to talk about relative values and how one person values different things than another, who could disagree? But then the argument for effective altruism starts to crumble.

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

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Either AI is going to be peaceful, or its going to kill us and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Have you heard of the AI Box experiments? http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox/ The problem of containing a hostile AI does not seem to be particularly tractable to me.

It seems pretty tractable to not build such a thing as a hostile AI.

I'm not so sure. Even prosaic, current AI, can be very unpredictable. See this blog post http://aiweirdness.com/post/172894792687/when-algorithms-sur... , which is a somewhat more causal summary of this paper "The Surprising Creativity of Digital Evolution: A Collection of Anecdotes from the Evolutionary Computation and Artificial Life Research Communities" https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.03453v2

The authors of the paper explain a bunch of anecdotes when they wanted the AI to do one thing, but the measure they told it to optimise for wasn't actually what they intended, and so unexpected things happened.

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

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re homelessness in the US, someone recently shared this with me and it looks promising, though it seems to only be in Seattle at the moment: https://www.samaritan.city/

I don't know that I really need an app to give beggars money or buy the Spare Change News from someone.

You absolutely don't need an app to give homeless individuals money. But when I was homeless, I found that it was vastly more helpful for me if someone gave me a few bucks than if I had to stand in line for hours, fill out reams of paper, etc to try to get some assistance. I am happy to encourage any model that fosters a little more direct giving of this sort.

I am also looking to create a pilot program to try to help homeless individuals begin to develop an online income from the street as I did. Charity helps you survive another day, but you need an income of your own to get your life back and many programs seem to actively be against the idea of homeless people trying to work for a living. People seem to see it as cruel to expect them to. But earned income is the only real path out of dire poverty.

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

#140

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…

Isn’t this just a statement that you disagree either with the relative probability of an AI-related disaster or the relative degree of harm it could cause? It seems harsh to say it’s “morally repugnant” when in the end you’re just saying the way you assign probabilities and degrees of negative outcomes would lead you to invest in a different portfolio of charities or efforts than what this other group would do. (I’m…

IMO, the problem with AI risk funding isn't that it is 'wrong', per se. Instead it is that it is very speculative and not grounder in real world data, or measurable benefits that can be achieved TODAY.

The whole point of effective altruism is to be very ground in evidence based causes. IE, if I spend 10K on this cause, then it will definitely save X lived by next year.

AI risks can't be reduced to these kinds of numbers just yet.

It could still be true, we just don't have any evidence yet to prove it though.

Post reply on HN