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

The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 619 posts

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#101

Post by yanderekko »

didibus wrote: post #21

I'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…

>Instead of like being humble, not accumulating wealth for yourself, not thinking of yourself as better, etc.

The EA advice is that if you're good at something valuable, then the best strategy for being charitable is to do that valuable thing and then donate your money. Do you think it's incompatible with humility to believe that you're good at something valuable? I don't think there's any notion of "thinking of yourself as better" baked in here.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#102

Post by drdeca »

kimixa wrote: post #96

I feel this is an "actions speak louder than words" situation. Has there been any effective believer in "Effective Altruism" that has actually got past the "accumulation of wealth" stage? Where are their great works of human charity? It's been a concept in many wealthy circles long enough we should be seeing the payoff. Or is it just a self-justification of their current actions, of wealth accumulation, to be conveni…

I would think so, yes.

Like, I know Vitalik Buterin said “stop making me a continued recipient of whatever coin project you are creating and just make those go to an effective charity like givewell and such”, and people followed that instruction.

The great works of charity, well, look at the charities they endorse, like, against malaria foundation and givewell etc. , and look at what these organizations have achieved.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#103

Post by csours »

This post does not have a concrete conclusion, it is just some thoughts I had while reading the article.

---

EA seems to have a core belief in post-scarcity. I've recently been thinking about post-scarcity. To my knowledge, I have not been engaging with EA content; I wonder if it has become pervasive because of their efforts, or if the time is ripe for the concept.

I've also been thinking about the number of different times that religion has evolved in a population. Religion fulfills various psychological needs; for a while it was popular for atheist thinkers to say we have evolved past the need for religion. I am agnostic, but I think people still need 'religion' and they will in the future. It may not be a religion with a personal god or gods; the concept of the divine comes from the human mind, the human mind will always have a place for godliness of some kind. I could be wrong, religion could be a blip, but I don't think so.

Religions of the past have reflected the tribalism inherent in the human condition. There has always been a fight with another tribe that was the most pressing. Other fights are suspended or suppressed until the main fight is concluded or paused. From my lifetime, the main fight was the Cold War until that concluded, and then it was national politics. It's very hard to come to terms with the core beliefs and morality of the main opponent, no matter who or when.

I'm sure EA says something about religion and tribalism, but the human experience is also important. The human experience starts in a place, with some people. Those people are your tribe, until you find another tribe. Their religion is your religion, until you find another religion.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#104

Post by yanderekko »

chatterhead wrote: post #65

Effective Altruism is bullshit and here is why; because, the invisible hand has already shown itself to be a far better lever of human good through the acceptance of human nature. "Helping people" implies you know what people need. It's a power position to begin with and thus designed to fulfill the doers goals of doing good not the receivers 'need' of being helped. Each of us, individually, pursuing our own self-int…

>"Helping people" implies you know what people need.

No it doesn't. I'm content to outsource my charitable decision-making to recommenders that I think align with my values. A competitor is free to come along and convince me that they'd make a better recommendation and I'll shift my money accordingly, just like buying any other product. They can even skim a bit off the top if I really trust them and give to their funds! That's the invisible hand.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#105

Post by yanderekko »

nemo44x wrote: post #58

Why 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.

Well, I do believe that some of these charities explicitly recommend giving 10-20% of your income..

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#106

Post by chrchang523 »

Wow, these guys are really lost.

I used to respect them, and even during the past few days I thought this crisis was a major opportunity for them to reflect and find their way again.

So I posted a comment on their forum with (i) an observation that they could regain trust by doing their share (I suggested twice the money they received from FTX) to make financial fraud victims whole before resuming their regular program, and (ii) a link to https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BZ6XaCwN4QGgH9CxF/the-kelly-... , the first paragraph of which might have stopped SBF from making the big wrong turn in his reasoning (note that almost all other arguments on the Internet against SBF's reasoning don't actually work). Nothing but downvotes.

I recommend against any further association with these people in the strongest possible terms. (I'll retract this if it turns out that the downvoters were the exception and the EA community actually proceeds to demonstrate good citizenship in something like the manner I suggested, but I'm not holding my breath.)

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#107

Post by JamesBarney »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #60
civilized wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What name is manipulative?

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#108

Post by yanderekko »

pr337h4m wrote: post #68

I've been convinced for sometime now that "effective altruism" (Lesswrong-ism? Yudkowskianism?) is the communism of the 21st century. Lots of parallels here beyond the obvious common thread of utilitarian collectivism: - Censorship: the concept of "infohazards" is super-popular https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/information-hazards - Social control + the creation of an 'othe…

>I've been convinced for sometime now that "effective altruism" (Lesswrong-ism? Yudkowskianism?) is the communism of the 21st century.

I mean, maybe sorta.. the eschatology is far more interesting with EA, at least.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#109

Post by drewbeck »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #55
didibus wrote: post #21

I'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.

This seems correct. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#110

Post by metta2uall »

chatterhead wrote: post #65

Effective Altruism is bullshit and here is why; because, the invisible hand has already shown itself to be a far better lever of human good through the acceptance of human nature. "Helping people" implies you know what people need. It's a power position to begin with and thus designed to fulfill the doers goals of doing good not the receivers 'need' of being helped. Each of us, individually, pursuing our own self-int…

The concept that seeking our own interests is to the betterment of the whole seems to be demonstrably false.. For example consider the tobacco and fossil fuel executives who are trying to delay the phase-out of their products. Or the people who buy/sell meat in spite of the resulting ecological damage & animal suffering.

By the way, a charity quite popular in mainstream Effective Altruism is Give Directly - which aims to avoid trying to figure out what poor people need by giving them cash.

Post reply on HN