4 ms·

Who cares if it's more self serving as long as they do get the the second part? There is such a thing as win-win outcomes. "It's also bogus: not many can bec

Who cares if it's more self serving as long as they do get the the second part? There is such a thing as win-win outcomes. "It's also bogus: not many can become rich" No need to become rich. You can have a big impact and save many lives on a dev salary. EA isn't premised on becoming a billionaire, as you seem to incorrectly believe.

cycomanic 6y ago
But that assumes that 1. A significant portion of the people who want to get rich to help people actually get rich 2. Once they are rich they actually help 3. The process of getting rich doesn't make others poorer. (example does Bezos donating some portion of his wealth do better than him actually paying people more, or have the part owners of amazon?) All these points are far from obviously true. In fact I can come up with many examples where they obviously are not.
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  Regarding (1) - Becoming rich isn't part of the premise of EA. Getting a $100k job is often sufficient to have extra cash that can save real lives. Regarding (2) - There are examples of successful EA in action. See the FTX founder. Regarding (3) - Getting rich can't make people poorer (on net) unless you're exploiting negative externalities, which we would both agree need to be addressed by government. It can transfer wealth from A to B (e.g., by deprecating one industry and replacing it with another), for sure, but I don't see that as automatically bad.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    > Getting rich can't make people poorer (on net) unless you're exploiting negative externalities, You mean, the easiest ways to get rich? You have to be pretty principled not to take those.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
coldtea 6y ago
I don't against EA in general in the comment (I do have tons of reservations against it, but not time to write about it here atm). I respond to the grandparent's comment, specifically the part I explicitly quoted -- which does mention becoming rich. That said: >Who cares if it's more self serving as long as they do get the the second part? People like me, who don't consider it being altruistic or not as orthogonal to the success of the second part.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > being altruistic or not as orthogonal to Are you using 'orthogonal' to mean "unrelated to", or do you mean "in opposition to"? Because depending on which meaning you intend, your final sentence can be read in two very different ways. If it's the first, I'm not completely sure you and fighterpilot are necessarily disagreeing? If it's the second meaning, then it's a somewhat bold claim to say that personal benefit in any form invalidates altruism.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    People like me, who don't consider it being altruistic or not as orthogonal to the success of the second part. >Are you using 'orthogonal' to mean "unrelated to", or do you mean "in opposition to"? I'm using it to mean "unrelated to" (canonical CS meaning of "orthogonal" as well). But, here's the catch, note that I used a double negative in my phrasing. so, I'm not saying they are othogonal, I'm saying they're not orthogonal. That is, I don't consider "being altruistic or not as orthogonal to the success of the second part" (the second part being the "helping" we were discussing). So, it's not that "personal benefit in any form invalidates altruism", it's that lack of altruism works against effectivly helping people.

cycomanic 6y ago

But that assumes that 1. A significant portion of the people who want to get rich to help people actually get rich 2. Once they are rich they actually help 3. The process of getting rich doesn't make others poorer. (example does Bezos donating some portion of his wealth do better than him actually paying people more, or have the part owners of amazon?) All these points are far from obviously true. In fact I can come up with many examples where they obviously are not.

fighterpilot 6y ago
Regarding (1) - Becoming rich isn't part of the premise of EA. Getting a $100k job is often sufficient to have extra cash that can save real lives. Regarding (2) - There are examples of successful EA in action. See the FTX founder. Regarding (3) - Getting rich can't make people poorer (on net) unless you're exploiting negative externalities, which we would both agree need to be addressed by government. It can transfer wealth from A to B (e.g., by deprecating one industry and replacing it with another), for sure, but I don't see that as automatically bad.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  > Getting rich can't make people poorer (on net) unless you're exploiting negative externalities, You mean, the easiest ways to get rich? You have to be pretty principled not to take those.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

coldtea 6y ago

I don't against EA in general in the comment (I do have tons of reservations against it, but not time to write about it here atm). I respond to the grandparent's comment, specifically the part I explicitly quoted -- which does mention becoming rich. That said: >Who cares if it's more self serving as long as they do get the the second part? People like me, who don't consider it being altruistic or not as orthogonal to the success of the second part.

danShumway 6y ago
> being altruistic or not as orthogonal to Are you using 'orthogonal' to mean "unrelated to", or do you mean "in opposition to"? Because depending on which meaning you intend, your final sentence can be read in two very different ways. If it's the first, I'm not completely sure you and fighterpilot are necessarily disagreeing? If it's the second meaning, then it's a somewhat bold claim to say that personal benefit in any form invalidates altruism.
- coldtea 6y ago
  People like me, who don't consider it being altruistic or not as orthogonal to the success of the second part. >Are you using 'orthogonal' to mean "unrelated to", or do you mean "in opposition to"? I'm using it to mean "unrelated to" (canonical CS meaning of "orthogonal" as well). But, here's the catch, note that I used a double negative in my phrasing. so, I'm not saying they are othogonal, I'm saying they're not orthogonal. That is, I don't consider "being altruistic or not as orthogonal to the success of the second part" (the second part being the "helping" we were discussing). So, it's not that "personal benefit in any form invalidates altruism", it's that lack of altruism works against effectivly helping people.