I mean, it broke because utility isn't additive, which is the issue with utilitarian ethics generally.
The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
51–60 of 619 posts
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#52I've always found EA to be the most capitalist way of trying to do good. Instead of like being humble, not accumulating wealth for yourself, not thinking of yourself as better, etc. EA is pushing for this weird self-centered egotistical philanthropic avenue. That's literally the least efficient way to help anyone. This also always felt very American. I'll get rich by paying workers poorly, finding any advantageous lo…
It’s because we threw away Christianity as a moral compass which many interpret similarly and the hole was filled with EA, woke, etc. These people just totally missed the point of why we ditched Christianity/religion in the first place. It wasn’t so we could replace it with a different socio-political hegemony or otherwise moralizing institution.
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#53Maybe this is superficial, but I was put off by the name "effective altruism". By naming it such, it felt like an implicit dig that most altruism is not effective. Like oh your altruism is not that productive, but my altruism, well it's effective altruism. Especially when that notion is pushed by people who overlap with the rationalist subculture, another arrogantly named group. In general I find it concerning when t…
I mean, I think it was a very explicit dig. The founding idea is that giving $10,000 to save, y’know, four ailing dogs with bad livers or whatever, or a community theater, as opposed to many human lives, is fundamentally wrong. “If you’re gonna give, you should maximize the impact as measured in human life” is fundamentally at odds with many common forms of giving, yes.
It's worth mentioning that organized EA is much more concerned with animal welfare and animal rights than a lot of the surrounding culture, so many EAs strongly advocate giving to animal-related causes. But they would still be concerned with having as large an impact as possible, so something to help 1,000,000 animals would be favored over something to help four.
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#54To me, SBF embodied the worst stereotypes about the Effective Altruism movement. The not-so-subtle air of I'm-smarter-than-thou, the hubris to think whatever they have thought of haven't been thought and dismissed by others (probably for good reason), and a bull-headed focus on risk and return that can be exactly quantified, to the point of ignoring other, "softer" sides of the issue. SBF isn't alone in this. In scho…
[deleted]
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#55I've always found EA to be the most capitalist way of trying to do good. Instead of like being humble, not accumulating wealth for yourself, not thinking of yourself as better, etc. EA is pushing for this weird self-centered egotistical philanthropic avenue. That's literally the least efficient way to help anyone. This also always felt very American. I'll get rich by paying workers poorly, finding any advantageous lo…
Mostly it's a method of assuaging the guilt and resolving the cognitive dissonance that comes with having left-wing values but also wanting to be very rich.
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#56I used to work for one of the largest software vendors in the non-profit space worldwide and it fundamentally changed the way I look at the non-profit world. The big ones have essentially become these weird quasi-think tanks that passively influence policy or actively engage the community to achieve an often political agenda. For example, a large non-profit can't explicitly lobby congress to ban sex education in scho…
[deleted]
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#57Maybe this is superficial, but I was put off by the name "effective altruism". By naming it such, it felt like an implicit dig that most altruism is not effective. Like oh your altruism is not that productive, but my altruism, well it's effective altruism. Especially when that notion is pushed by people who overlap with the rationalist subculture, another arrogantly named group. In general I find it concerning when t…
The founders of the Effective Altruism movement are mostly non-technical people. You can't blame their arrogance and failures on the "techbros".
The people mentioned on the Effective Altruism Wikipedia page:
Peter Singer: Professor of Bioethics (philosopher)
Toby Ord: Philosopher. Philosophy PhD, Computer Science bachelors
Hilary Greaves: Philosopher, and he double-majored in physics in undergrad
William MacAskill: Philosopher/Ethicist. PhD in philosophy.
Eliezer Yudkowsky: self-described autodidact, no formal education or notable work history. Runs a "AI" "Research" center called MIRI.
Holden Karnofsky: Co-Founder of GiveWell, Harvard degree in Social Studies
Yew-Kwang Ng: Welfare Economist, has published biology, mathematics, philosophy, cosmology, psychology, and sociology papers.
Derek Parfit: Philosopher. Has a history degree.
Nick Bostrom: Philosopher. BA in philosophy and math, MA in philosophy and physics.
Benjamin Todd: Physics/Philosophy double major, worked at Kodak for eight months and at an investment firm for 1.25 years before joining the Centre for Effective Altruism.
The financial backers are more diverse:
Dustin Moskovitz: Co-Founder of Facebook, Co-Founder of Open Philanthropy
Cari Tuna: Dustin's wife, previously worked as a reporter before cofounding Open Philanthropy
Dan Smith: Professional poker player
Liv Boeree: Professional poker player. Physics degree
Sam Bankman-Fried: con-artist, thief, fraudster. Has a physics degree and a minor in math, interned/worked as a trader at Jane Street, and founded Alameda Capital and FTX.
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#58Why do we see replications of religious concepts and actions in all these modern replacement movements? Just call it tithing, for example.
Please stop repackaging the same garbage and calling it new.
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#59Maybe this is superficial, but I was put off by the name "effective altruism". By naming it such, it felt like an implicit dig that most altruism is not effective. Like oh your altruism is not that productive, but my altruism, well it's effective altruism. Especially when that notion is pushed by people who overlap with the rationalist subculture, another arrogantly named group. In general I find it concerning when t…
The founders of the Effective Altruism movement are mostly non-technical people. You can't blame their arrogance and failures on the "techbros". The people mentioned on the Effective Altruism Wikipedia page: Peter Singer: Professor of Bioethics (philosopher) Toby Ord: Philosopher. Philosophy PhD, Computer Science bachelors Hilary Greaves: Philosopher, and he double-majored in physics in undergrad William MacAskill: P…
[deleted]
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#60Maybe this is superficial, but I was put off by the name "effective altruism". By naming it such, it felt like an implicit dig that most altruism is not effective. Like oh your altruism is not that productive, but my altruism, well it's effective altruism. Especially when that notion is pushed by people who overlap with the rationalist subculture, another arrogantly named group. In general I find it concerning when t…
Is there a term you would deem acceptable for seeking to give to others in a cost-effective manner? This seems to be a perfectly good idea. Doesn't it seem problematic that giving it a simple, straightforward name seems inherently arrogant and insufferable?
The article mentions its philosophical underpinnings: utilitarianism. There’s a wealth of philosophical discussion of its own merits and problems. Reading the article but having been unfamiliar with the “effective altruism” term, I immediately recognized utilitarianism in it and the rest was predictable. It seemed a perfectly good idea to me too for some time, and still does with a slew of caveats.
Giving it a simple name is fine, but it has one. Giving it a manipulative name is, well, one of the potential philosophical problems with utilitarianism.