3 ms·

> But more importantly, I think if you just went and talked to random political scientists, you would find they actually had not thought very hard about what th

> But more importantly, I think if you just went and talked to random political scientists, you would find they actually had not thought very hard about what the most important causes are. If you ask them, they would come up with something on the spot. Indeed, political scientists don't at all seem to be the correct experts for this question. Did you just come up with this on the spot? ; ) But, I agree! Personally, I'd ask the historians! ;)

jessriedel 6y ago
No, the questions you're raising have been asked (reasonably) by many. I really do think the EA folks are doing something novel, and there is a reasonable but incorrect intuition that all of this must have been sorted out before (so that if they're getting unconventional answers they must have made a mistake in their assumptions or process). Step 1 in finding the highest impact thing to do is being serious about establishing cause and effect, and historians by their own admission rarely try to do that. (Cliometrics is a bit better.)
- adamsea 6y ago
  Interesting. If you have time could you share some articles / sources / examples / something to lend some solidity to what you're arguing, and also so that I can follow up and learn more? TBH I'd make an argument for the elimination of war being a huge way to better the world. Imagine: - No invasion of Iraq. - No bungling of the invasion of Afghanistan (or no invasion) - No Syrian war and millions of refugees. War has huge negative ripple effects in addition to all of the deaths it causes; societies and communities are destroyed, whose effects echo for generations. It consumes insane amounts of resources. If we want to think big, that's what I'd think about. Maybe even focus on exclusively. I mean, who do you think is going to buck against checks and balances on scary intelligent AI research? Defense-funded research. Sure, EA talks about international relations, etc, but, where's the study on the cost/benefits of world-wide pacifism, if we're theorizing here? Part of my skepticism of all this is because there is so much thought put into bettering the world over time: - All the religions, which still undergird the various systems of morals/laws we have. - To name a few philosophers / social thinkers who directly discussed making things "better": - Plato - Hobbes - Marx - Habermas (I haven't read him, but I've read about him; big on liberal democracy and the post WWII European system, I think) That's a pretty hefty list right there. That's not even a full accounting of the Western philosophers/thinkers. Not to even mention the non-Western philosophers/thinkers. And, tbh, I think it's easy for non-historians, or scholars who don't focus on political science or political philosophy/theory to just write the field off; and, IMHO the "hard" sciences and tech/CS folk in particular have a tendency to do this. So I'm always a bit skeptical.

jessriedel 6y ago

No, the questions you're raising have been asked (reasonably) by many. I really do think the EA folks are doing something novel, and there is a reasonable but incorrect intuition that all of this must have been sorted out before (so that if they're getting unconventional answers they must have made a mistake in their assumptions or process). Step 1 in finding the highest impact thing to do is being serious about establishing cause and effect, and historians by their own admission rarely try to do that. (Cliometrics is a bit better.)

adamsea 6y ago
Interesting. If you have time could you share some articles / sources / examples / something to lend some solidity to what you're arguing, and also so that I can follow up and learn more? TBH I'd make an argument for the elimination of war being a huge way to better the world. Imagine: - No invasion of Iraq. - No bungling of the invasion of Afghanistan (or no invasion) - No Syrian war and millions of refugees. War has huge negative ripple effects in addition to all of the deaths it causes; societies and communities are destroyed, whose effects echo for generations. It consumes insane amounts of resources. If we want to think big, that's what I'd think about. Maybe even focus on exclusively. I mean, who do you think is going to buck against checks and balances on scary intelligent AI research? Defense-funded research. Sure, EA talks about international relations, etc, but, where's the study on the cost/benefits of world-wide pacifism, if we're theorizing here? Part of my skepticism of all this is because there is so much thought put into bettering the world over time: - All the religions, which still undergird the various systems of morals/laws we have. - To name a few philosophers / social thinkers who directly discussed making things "better": - Plato - Hobbes - Marx - Habermas (I haven't read him, but I've read about him; big on liberal democracy and the post WWII European system, I think) That's a pretty hefty list right there. That's not even a full accounting of the Western philosophers/thinkers. Not to even mention the non-Western philosophers/thinkers. And, tbh, I think it's easy for non-historians, or scholars who don't focus on political science or political philosophy/theory to just write the field off; and, IMHO the "hard" sciences and tech/CS folk in particular have a tendency to do this. So I'm always a bit skeptical.