Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 220 posts

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

#171

Post by throwawayjava »

Nimitz14 wrote: post #169
throwawayjava wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's absolutely morally repugnant to walk past them and not give them money, because instead you're paying people to sit around thinking about AI. This is not a new argument. Sister Mary Jucunda, a Zambian nun, wrote to a NASA scientist (Ernst Stuhlinger) in the early 70's with a similar critique of funding for space research. You can read Ernst's cogent reply here: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-…

Not remotely applicable. For one, so far everyone predicting doom about AI has been a layman a subject. Maybe you aren't aware, but this is a field that people do PhDs and get professorships in. Noone respected agrees with the doom-sayers.

> Maybe you aren't aware, but this is a field that people do PhDs and get professorships in.

I'm aware of my own existence, thanks ;-)

> Noone respected agrees with the doom-sayers

But many, many, many respected AI researchers (who I've talked to about this) certainly do agree that AI/ML safety/robustness are important topics of inquiry.

Including researchers at all the top CS departments, at Deepmind, at OpenAI, etc.

Consider critiquing the concrete projects that are funded with AI safety money. Very little of that money flows to research about "preventing malicious superintelligence" or whatever strawman you have in mind. And even projects that consider those questions also consider many much more near-term AI safety questions.

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

#172

Post by jonny_eh »

pas wrote: post #132
monktastic1 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's called "Effective Altruism"

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

#173

Post by casebash »

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…

Your assumption seems to be that either it is a pure emotional value judgement (like donating to a dog shelter because you felt like it) or a perfectly objective judgement (ie. meta-reviews of randomised controlled trials). Perhaps that's a false dichotomy and there's a difference between supporting a cause based that is now supported by a significant body of philosophical and technical literature and just donating to whatever you feel like? There's nothing wrong with the later, just that you are kidding yourself if you think it is likely to be effective.

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

#174

Post by DanBC »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #127
mkirklions wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be really cool, but the conversation was impossible to read. The links/website is designed badly. Howd he let the AI out both times?

There have been other instances of the AI box experiment where the dialog is public. Like this one https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fbekxBfgvfc7pmnzB/how-to-win... . Yudkowsky's original intention to not release the dialog was to prevent people from saying "I wouldn't have been swayed by that, therefore AI escaping is impossible!". Even if we grant the first part of the sentence, that an AI escaping is impossible does…

> and strong evidence is that only human-level intelligences have escaped the same situation.

I don't know if this is the same situation, but laboratory beagles, farmed mink, etc show that non-humans can pursuade humans to release them from cages.

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

#175

Post by emodendroket »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #143
emodendroket wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I also find it unfortunate that so many people seem to see themselves as freelance interrogators of the homeless asking about what they will do with the money they're given.

Yes, thank you for saying that. The problem runs deeper than you may realize. Even very well meaning people would walk up to me and ask me "Are you homeless? What's your name?" They didn't volunteer their name, address or socioeconomic status when asking such questions. They were trying to ascertain if I would need help. A much better question format that isn't so problematic would be along the lines of "I have X (cl…

It reminds me of an anecdote about CS Lewis. He is supposed to have given a beggar some change, and he friend asked him "what did you do that for? He's just going to spend it on booze." And Lewis is supposed to have replied "well, that's all I was going to use it for anyway."

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

#176

Post by casebash »

emodendroket wrote: post #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.

Even if there are things that quantitative measurement can't capture, perhaps we could at least use it to rule out donating to some charities?

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

#177

Post by throwawayjava »

gowld wrote: post #156
throwawayjava wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's absolutely morally repugnant to walk past them and not give them money, because instead you're paying people to sit around thinking about AI. This is not a new argument. Sister Mary Jucunda, a Zambian nun, wrote to a NASA scientist (Ernst Stuhlinger) in the early 70's with a similar critique of funding for space research. You can read Ernst's cogent reply here: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-…

That's a rather condescending reply, lecturing her like a schoolchild. Funding space research is one thing, but spending $billions on poor designs like the Shuttle is another and on expensive American lifestyles is another.

> That's a rather condescending reply

The reply begins with a sincere "...First, however, I would like to express my great admiration for you...".

The denoted intent of the letter is certainly not condescending.

Perhaps the content is what makes the letter condescending? The letter, if written today, might come off as condescending. It states many obvious truths, such as the observation that space development provides valuable tools to Zambian nuns. Today, this is obvious [1], and to point out such obvious facts to an expert borders on condescension.

But GPS wasn't at all an obvious implication of NASA funding in 1970!

If the letter comes off as condescending today, it's only because time (and science funding) has turned the impossible into the pedestrian.

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2011/0...

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

#178

Post by emodendroket »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #161
gowld wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blanket example reminds me of all the handwringing about people "misusing" LLINs as a fishing aid, as though fighting malaria is more important than not starving. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532690/

This study investigated the extent of bed net misuse in fishing villages. Wow. There is something incredibly fucked up about funding a study into bed net misuse rather than a study on the dire need for more help with meeting basic necessities like adequate nourishment as evidenced by so-called bed net misuse. Or, you know, the sarcastic reply: If you die of starvation, I guess you no longer need to worry about detail…

No kidding. It's an illustration of a charity out of touch with the people it serves that you would call too overwrought if it appeared in a novel.

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

#179

Post by emodendroket »

casebash wrote: post #176
emodendroket wrote: post #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.

Even if there are things that quantitative measurement can't capture, perhaps we could at least use it to rule out donating to some charities?

If you want to answer a question like "who distributes the most malaria nets per dollar?" then quantitative measure is very effective. I don't think that's most questions facing someone who wants to do good, though.

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

#180

Post by throwawayjava »

jopsen wrote: post #144
throwawayjava wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's absolutely morally repugnant to walk past them and not give them money, because instead you're paying people to sit around thinking about AI. This is not a new argument. Sister Mary Jucunda, a Zambian nun, wrote to a NASA scientist (Ernst Stuhlinger) in the early 70's with a similar critique of funding for space research. You can read Ernst's cogent reply here: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-…

Well, fighting poverty also grows the economy and number of brains available for research in the future. Today we are bringing people out of poverty for good, much charity isn't money in a bottomless pit. The pit has a bottom as evident by the very realistic goal to end extreme poverty by 2030. Still basic research is important, because it has such a long tail. Just saying both approaches have validity and will bring…

I certainly won't argue with that! We should be spending much more money on poverty reduction than on basic science.
Post reply on HN