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

591–600 of 619 posts

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

#591

Post by wolverine876 »

PebblesRox wrote: post #434
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…

"Maybe it's some kind of horrible drug interaction with Rationalism, or maybe EA is fundamentally Rationalist?" I have always associated EA with the rationalist movement, since I came across it via reading rationalist stuff. If you define EA as "figuring out how to deploy a given set of resources so as to do the most good," your conclusions are going to depend on your value system: how do you define and measure good?…

> your conclusions are going to depend on your value system

That's a logical extreme, not reality; it's a philosophy class debate, used to rationalize everything and not applicable to life, where survival, freedom, prosperity, and happiness depend on our abilty to judge and discern - especially between values.

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

#592

Post by wolverine876 »

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…

> Over and over I keep coming across EA arguments that could be used to justify almost literally any behavior

Let's stop being surprised by the self-serving rationalizations of (many) tech leaders. Expect it, stop trusting it by default, stop taking them seriously.

Or try this hypothesis: Whatever the issue, their theory (EA or whatever else) will always benefit them. Find a more predictive hypothesis if you can.

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

#593

Post by ithkuil »

Bukhmanizer wrote: post #558
ithkuil wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and that's bad for the actual altruistic causes because? Yes there are such people. I don't think they would be less greedy and exploitative if they didn't have a way to feel better about it. They would find another way to feel better, perhaps one that doesn't have the side effect of actually help out random people that would benefit from that help.

> and that's bad for the actual altruistic causes because Because if all the numbers are made up, you don’t actually know what is an “altruistic” choice. You can say, gamble with other peoples money, and justify it by donating 10% of the returns to charity. And if the math works out in your head, it’s all good. > Yes there are such people. I don't think they would be less greedy and exploitative if they didn't have a…

are you saying that if it weren't for EA, the greedy people who it attracts would behave better because they wouldn't have a way to wash their sins?

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

#594

Post by disqard »

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 imagine that the rare folks who actually do structure their life to keep doing such things, are:

1. low-key, and

2. try to stay out of the spotlight to the maximum extent possible.

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

#595

Post by afiori »

bioemerl wrote: post #513
afiori wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Machines being simpler is the problem. The problems with AGI are 1) runaway growth and the singularity and 2) the scale and reach of its actions. Humans are deeply limited in their senses, their actions, and their ability to communicate. An AGI botnet installed on every computer/control system in the world would have none of those limitations.

Complexity breeds ability. Our computers will have to continue to get more complex in order for AI to do the same. What humans have is scale. There are 10 billion devices connected to the internet. Cool, right? More than humans? No. Being human has really big perks. We are mobile. We have hands and feet. We have eyes and touch and smell and we use tools to expand what we can see. We each possess the ability to proces…

Humans are advanced, yes, but we cannot easily solve coordination problems.

Think of how different the world would be if everybody was controlled by a single unified mind.

If everyone was perfectly aware of where in the world their skill were best applied, if everyone agreed on social and economical objectives.

AGI can duplicate itself and can reprogram itself.

It is not about which one is more marvelous, more advanced, or more evolved.

It is about specific possibilities that AGI has that we don't.

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

#596

Post by tptacek »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #577
tptacek wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's, like, the modal experience people have with the movement. But that, too, is how Scientology works! I'm reacting to messages circulating about the whisper campaign among EA higher-ups, many of which are explicit about the fact that they didn't warn the public about Sam Bankman-Fried because EA-the-movement would ostracize them, not just from their community but also from their jobs.…

> I'm not making those messages up. You are also not providing evidence.

Nor will I. They're on Twitter, in screenshots. I'm comfortable with the people here who do and don't take me seriously; a perk of commenting here under my own name for over a decade, I guess.

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

#597

Post by tacitusarc »

jerf wrote: post #459
PebblesRox wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Maybe it's some kind of horrible drug interaction with Rationalism, or maybe EA is fundamentally Rationalist?" I have always associated EA with the rationalist movement, since I came across it via reading rationalist stuff. If you define EA as "figuring out how to deploy a given set of resources so as to do the most good," your conclusions are going to depend on your value system: how do you define and measure good?…

"If you define EA as "figuring out how to deploy a given set of resources so as to do the most good," your conclusions are going to depend on your value system: how do you define and measure good?" I think more subtly it also depends on your calculation methodology. Rationalists talk a lot about the value of numbers for their Bayesian analyses and their "shut up and calculate" motto, but to my mind they overestimate…

I think this type of analysis is what a lot of EA is, oddly, missing. I also think the level of uncertainty necessarily associated with EA-style consequentialism necessitates a sort of pragmatic deontology.

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

#598

Post by concordDance »

didibus wrote: post #541
concordDance wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EA is pushing for this weird self-centered egotistical philanthropic avenue. That's literally the least efficient way to help anyone. What. The stereotypical EA person is a banker who makes $150k/year after tax and donates $100k/year to the against malaria foundation. As opposed to the lawyer who quits working for corporate and becomes a gardner, which seems to be what you're advocating. The former seems to do far…

> The former seems to do far more good in the world, saving hundreds of young lives I guess the example is incomplete, the banker also contributes to some system in a way, is the work harmful to others? And if the work is beneficial, they're still part of a system where, why are they taking such a large salary in the first place? Now, I'm actually not opposed to this form of EA. Like the other commenter said, donatin…

> heck accept higher tax brackets and give more back to fund social institutions and infrastructure.

Am I reading this wrong or are you saying that the government is the most efficient form of charity?

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

#599

Post by fnordian_slip »

ithkuil wrote: post #593
Bukhmanizer wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and that's bad for the actual altruistic causes because Because if all the numbers are made up, you don’t actually know what is an “altruistic” choice. You can say, gamble with other peoples money, and justify it by donating 10% of the returns to charity. And if the math works out in your head, it’s all good. > Yes there are such people. I don't think they would be less greedy and exploitative if they didn't have a…

are you saying that if it weren't for EA, the greedy people who it attracts would behave better because they wouldn't have a way to wash their sins?

Maybe not all of them, but since a lot of recruiting is done at universities, where people are in their formative years, I believe the previous poster does have a point.

There are probably quite a few people just who want to do good, and get suckered into longtermism which results in them doing AI research instead.

You can actually see some of them in the EA forums, where they discuss this struggle.

Of course, as a lot of things surrounding EA, this is ironically quite hard to quantify ;)

Btw. please don't take it as an attack on EA as a concept, I believe that it has much to give provided it is not mixed with too much pseudo long-term thinking as described in the article, which in the end has way too much uncertainty in it for my taste.

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

#600

Post by edanm »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #425
edanm wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it. Looking at other countries that don't have capitalism, everyone is worse off. I don't think capitalism is the reason charity is necessary. I think the world starts default-bad for humans, by default we don't have anywhere close to the living we want, and over the years, many technological advanacements, including capitalism, have slowly made most humans far better off.…

> Looking at other countries that don't have capitalism, everyone is worse off. Interesting that all I talked about was a system of exploitation and your mind immediately filled in 'capitalism'. I think there are many countries that temper capitalism with socialist ideals and people are not worse off than the more unfettered variety practiced in the US.

> Interesting that all I talked about was a system of exploitation and your mind immediately filled in 'capitalism'.

That's not what happened. When I answered you I wrote "the system". I answered skinnymuch's post about capitalism, because they themselves talked about capitalism.

But out of curiosity - what "system" exactly did you have in mind?

> I think there are many countries that temper capitalism with socialist ideals and people are not worse off than the more unfettered variety practiced in the US.

Who said anything about the US?

Post reply on HN