The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 16, 2022, 10:54 AM UTC

a-dub wrote: post #66

polygamous_bat wrote: post #32

To 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…

expected value makes some sense when you're sampling a lot, but basically none for one offs. personally i think if you're making big bets/one-offs, you probably should be computing something like minimax trees for all the possible outcomes before making a choice and maybe adjust the bet size such that the worst case is something you can swallow.

Post by a3_nm » Wed, Nov 16, 2022, 10:57 AM UTC

andybak wrote: post #252

concordDance wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 -…

Post by Sakos » Wed, Nov 16, 2022, 10:58 AM UTC

hardwaregeek wrote: post #15

Maybe 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…

Post by notahacker » Wed, Nov 16, 2022, 11:00 AM UTC

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…

Post by blitzar » Wed, Nov 16, 2022, 11:03 AM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #273

Joeboy wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're making that comment with the idea that it's self-evidently wrong? Do I understand you correctly? I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. I don't get how on earth people weigh that as less important than the financial welfare of relatively well-off people in richer countries. Maybe this is some basic failure of humanity on my part.

The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majority of their possessions & wealth taken, to fund the equalising up-lifting of others. Charity and world aid is in a continual discussion & discovery of what we collectively think is 'good enough', helping people get to something that is perhaps 'not disaster', but…