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

251–260 of 619 posts

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

#251

Post by astrange »

zdragnar wrote: post #139
hardwaregeek wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...when did this become an either/or? We can do both. In fact diversification of one's "ethics portfolio" seems like something an effective altruist would understand quite well.

People have a finite amount of money to give, so every dollar is an either/or decision. Every dollar you spend on a theater donation is a dollar less that you value human lives. Of course, the same logic applies to candy bars, internet, television, and all the things that being you joy in life.

Some of those things (investments) will give you the dollar back later, and might be considered better ideas on that basis.

But that’s what leads to “earn to give”, which is what leads to deciding to become a billionaire and/or give away other people’s money instead.

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

#252

Post by andybak »

concordDance wrote: post #221
froggychairs wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but I do work in reducing harms of deployed AI systems at a big tech company When most EA/Rationalist folks discuss AI Safety. They’re talking about AGI, a hypothetical construct that we have no way of proving is even possible Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with funding research of that sort. The problem comes is that many EA/Rationalist folks begin downplaying legitimate tangible risks on the horizon (…

> I’ve had prominent EA folks tell me that Climate Change is not an existential risk Have you seen anything to indicate otherwise? The IPCC reports don't contain even a whiff in that direction. To the best of my knowledge zero people who know anything about climate change think its existential.

Is there an accepted unambiguous definition of "existential" here?

Is it:

1. All life on the planet dies

2. All advanced life on the planet dies?

3. All humans die?

4. Advanced civilization is destroyed irretrievably?

5. Advanced civilization is destroyed for a long period of time?

etc

And I'm not sure the group "people who know anything about climate change" are neccesarily better equipped to answer this question - it's a complex systems question.

I'm not actually sure who is equipped to answer it accurately.

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

#253

Post by coldtea »

tptacek wrote: post #137

My "Effective Altruism Is Not A Cult" t-shirt is prompting a lot of questions already answered by my shirt. I've dug into this stuff over the last couple days, because I had previously understood Effective Altruism to be something akin to like a pledge drive for Charity Navigator's best-reviewed charities or something, and it turns out it's nothing of the sort. In fact, if you read some of the commentary from EA insi…

"Effective Altruism Is Not A Cult" sounds like what a cult would say :)

Sure sounds like a cult in practice, especially in the whole context ( https://aiascendant.substack.com/p/extropias-children-chapte... the other 6 parts of the series are great reading too).

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

#254

Post by coldtea »

concordDance wrote: post #225
tptacek wrote: post #137

My "Effective Altruism Is Not A Cult" t-shirt is prompting a lot of questions already answered by my shirt. I've dug into this stuff over the last couple days, because I had previously understood Effective Altruism to be something akin to like a pledge drive for Charity Navigator's best-reviewed charities or something, and it turns out it's nothing of the sort. In fact, if you read some of the commentary from EA insi…

> I've dug into this stuff over the last couple days, because I had previously understood Effective Altruism to be something akin to like a pledge drive for Charity Navigator's best-reviewed charities or something, and it turns out it's nothing of the sort. As someone with multiple EA friends: this is precisely what it is. > they have their own weird language, there's a hierarchy, and people on the inside operate und…

>If AGI has even a 1% chance of happening this century and those donations reduce the risk of it going wrong and killing everyone by 1% that's still money very well spent.

This is Pascal's wager level absurdity combined with Drake equation level accuracy...

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

#255

Post by blitzar »

Joeboy wrote: post #249
tptacek wrote: post #137

My "Effective Altruism Is Not A Cult" t-shirt is prompting a lot of questions already answered by my shirt. I've dug into this stuff over the last couple days, because I had previously understood Effective Altruism to be something akin to like a pledge drive for Charity Navigator's best-reviewed charities or something, and it turns out it's nothing of the sort. In fact, if you read some of the commentary from EA insi…

There are surely two separate issues here? One is whether it's bad to eg. take first world crypto investors' money and use it to stop hundreds of thousands of people dying of preventable diseases in developing countries. Personally, I think not really, or at least it'd be an odd thing to be upset about? Happy to hear the arguments in favour of huge numbers of preventable deaths. Where that narrative gets problematic…

One is whether it's bad to eg. take first world Professional software developers' money and use it to stop hundreds of thousands of people dying of preventable diseases in developing countries. Personally, I think not really, or at least it'd be an odd thing to be upset about?

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

#256

Post by marvin »

ivalm wrote: post #232
concordDance wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've dug into this stuff over the last couple days, because I had previously understood Effective Altruism to be something akin to like a pledge drive for Charity Navigator's best-reviewed charities or something, and it turns out it's nothing of the sort. As someone with multiple EA friends: this is precisely what it is. > they have their own weird language, there's a hierarchy, and people on the inside operate und…

> If AGI has even a 1% chance of happening this century and those donations reduce the risk of it going wrong and killing everyone by 1% that's still money very well spent. Sure, but there is no reason to think these numbers are true. Maybe AI alignment research increases chances of AI killing everyone.

That’s just a common disagreement then, about priorities and decisions made on uncertain information.

No one gets to do a double-blind study on the measured probability of catastrophic AI accidents in worlds with and without safety research in advance of capabilities gain.

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

#257

Post by mtrycz2 »

armchairhacker wrote: post #10

Like most things: EA as a concept is fine. Finding the "maximal" way to improve the lives of others is great, and finding better ways to contribute than charity and volunteering is honorable. The issue is when people take it to the extreme (like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad , because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money and re…

The whole thing reminds me of "I, Robot", when the AI realizes that the greater good for humanity can't care for themselves, it is to be ruled by the AI for good.

This is the kind of vibe I get from this writeup, and the level of separation from humanity these people operate.

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

#258

Post by jonathanstrange »

yanderekko wrote: post #95
armchairhacker wrote: post #10

Like most things: EA as a concept is fine. Finding the "maximal" way to improve the lives of others is great, and finding better ways to contribute than charity and volunteering is honorable. The issue is when people take it to the extreme (like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad , because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money and re…

>The issue is when people take it to the extreme (like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad, because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money and recruiting to contribute more charity and volunteering) I mean, the concern here is that coming off as an asshole can be self-defeating, not that these views are actually incorrect, right? Seems…

The problem is the consequentialist ethics behind the position. Rigid consequentialism leads to all kinds of abhorrent views and is almost universally rejected among ethicists (with a few notable exceptions).

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

#259

Post by [deleted] »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #238
tptacek wrote: post #137

My "Effective Altruism Is Not A Cult" t-shirt is prompting a lot of questions already answered by my shirt. I've dug into this stuff over the last couple days, because I had previously understood Effective Altruism to be something akin to like a pledge drive for Charity Navigator's best-reviewed charities or something, and it turns out it's nothing of the sort. In fact, if you read some of the commentary from EA insi…

> Either way: when your logic has established that you can obtain moral superiority by literally buying indulgences, it has officially proven too much, and if you can't recognize that, something has gone terribly wrong in your thinking. I see it as a natural outcome of consequentialism. Your ability to do good things is tied to your circumstances, which are not the same for everyone. Are you saying that you're certai…

[deleted]

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

#260

Post by zztop44 »

JamesBarney wrote: post #160
polygamous_bat wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume the GP is talking about the name "effective altruism".

I don't know what else they should have picked? It seems like a fairly straightforward name for movement that focuses on charity effectiveness. I guess you could call it "effective giving" or something like that but caring about effectiveness is it core differentiating tenant and anything related to altruism/giving/charity is going to sound good.

I think the argument is that everyone else doing charity/altruism also (ostensibly) cares about effectiveness so it’s only a differentiating tenant if you somehow think your caring about effectiveness is somehow different to everyone else’s.
Post reply on HN