5 ms·

I think it's fine for private individuals to do it (though I disagree with their choice), but not to claim that it's evidence-based Effective Altruism while doi

I think it's fine for private individuals to do it (though I disagree with their choice), but not to claim that it's evidence-based Effective Altruism while doing so - it is an emotionally-led value judgment, just like donating to my local dog shelter would be (which I understand others may disgree with). That said, I do recognise now that effectivealtruism.org does not represent the entirety of the movement; I have no fault with what GiveWell are doing.

tlb 8y ago
Of course, there'll never be evidence about the effectiveness of research into existential risks until it's too late. So there's no way to objectively allocate funding between, say, AI safety and disease pandemics. While I think it's important to fund such research, it's a good point that funding orgs should either be evidence-based or not. Funding some things based on evidence and other things based on hunches might be an unstable combination. Once hunches are allowed, they could easily drift into funding things where the evidence says it's ineffective, but it gets overruled.
- mkirklions 8y ago
  You could probably calculate this. Since AI can kill 7,000,000,000 people, You could probably toss a non-zero probability on it. Any math people know how to model this? Even with a bunch of different variations for the probability, you could understand why AI is so dangerous. potentially. There are probably lots of non zero probability events like getting hit by a rogue quasar. The difference is we cannot stop the quasar and that humans are required to discover AI. I dont give money to other charities, I spend money on mine. We dont have any employees, just volunteers. I spent a total of 50$ on the LLC paperwork and 8$/mo for a website host. Everything else has went directly to the kids/families we are teaching.
  - tlb 8y ago
    The Center for Existential Risk does solid work on this. https://www.cser.ac.uk/ https://www.cser.ac.uk/ For estimating the likelihood of AGI, you can start with estimates from people in the field. Some say 0%, others say 80% chance in 50 years. Any way averaging of these produces a risk high enough to justify serious funding into safety research.
skybrian 8y ago
Sure, in some cases "speculative altruism" might actually be a better name.
casebash 8y ago
Your assumption seems to be that either it is a pure emotional value judgement (like donating to a dog shelter because you felt like it) or a perfectly objective judgement (ie. meta-reviews of randomised controlled trials). Perhaps that's a false dichotomy and there's a difference between supporting a cause based that is now supported by a significant body of philosophical and technical literature and just donating to whatever you feel like? There's nothing wrong with the later, just that you are kidding yourself if you think it is likely to be effective.

tlb 8y ago

Of course, there'll never be evidence about the effectiveness of research into existential risks until it's too late. So there's no way to objectively allocate funding between, say, AI safety and disease pandemics. While I think it's important to fund such research, it's a good point that funding orgs should either be evidence-based or not. Funding some things based on evidence and other things based on hunches might be an unstable combination. Once hunches are allowed, they could easily drift into funding things where the evidence says it's ineffective, but it gets overruled.

mkirklions 8y ago
You could probably calculate this. Since AI can kill 7,000,000,000 people, You could probably toss a non-zero probability on it. Any math people know how to model this? Even with a bunch of different variations for the probability, you could understand why AI is so dangerous. potentially. There are probably lots of non zero probability events like getting hit by a rogue quasar. The difference is we cannot stop the quasar and that humans are required to discover AI. I dont give money to other charities, I spend money on mine. We dont have any employees, just volunteers. I spent a total of 50$ on the LLC paperwork and 8$/mo for a website host. Everything else has went directly to the kids/families we are teaching.
- tlb 8y ago
  The Center for Existential Risk does solid work on this. https://www.cser.ac.uk/ https://www.cser.ac.uk/ For estimating the likelihood of AGI, you can start with estimates from people in the field. Some say 0%, others say 80% chance in 50 years. Any way averaging of these produces a risk high enough to justify serious funding into safety research.

skybrian 8y ago

Sure, in some cases "speculative altruism" might actually be a better name.

casebash 8y ago

Your assumption seems to be that either it is a pure emotional value judgement (like donating to a dog shelter because you felt like it) or a perfectly objective judgement (ie. meta-reviews of randomised controlled trials). Perhaps that's a false dichotomy and there's a difference between supporting a cause based that is now supported by a significant body of philosophical and technical literature and just donating to whatever you feel like? There's nothing wrong with the later, just that you are kidding yourself if you think it is likely to be effective.