3 ms·

This. And the analysis (good and bad) is the movement. It's great that they're encouraging people to donate money, and have goals in doing so, but that idea's

This. And the analysis (good and bad) is the movement. It's great that they're encouraging people to donate money, and have goals in doing so, but that idea's been around since ancient times. (And they're far the first people to apply utilitarian frameworks or RCTs to philanthropy either, so it's really the detail that's novel) And since the movement set itself up with the goal of debating the effectiveness of altruistic interventions (including explicit suggestions that others weren't doing altruism effectively), it seems ludicrously antithetical to that objective to shield it from criticism by telling us to shut up about the bits we think are ineffective and go away and give 10% of our own income instead. (Apart from anything else, 10% of the average sceptic's lifetime income probably isn't worth nearly as much in QALY as a throwaway comment convincing a single SV billionaire with exit money to spend on the future of humanity that they might be better off listening to boring old aid agencies that don't even do RCTs, rather than being seduced by arguments in favour of donating to a more EA-approved cause like the nonprofit marketing wing of OpenAI Inc)

zozbot234 4y ago
AI research is not "more EA-approved" than global development - any such claim is peddling gross misinformation. Most EA's donate a lot to global development, healthcare research, animal rights, disaster preparedness and other very mainstream causes.
- notahacker 4y ago
  > AI research is not "more EA-approved" than global development - any such claim is peddling gross misinformation I haven't made that claim. I have accurately stated that EA organisations have both explicitly criticised many/most aid agencies for not providing enough evidence of efficacy in the form of RCTs etc and explicitly endorsed and funded OpenAI. In my opinion, the latter cause is a less effective and in-need-of-funds one than the average "do not recommend" charity on GiveWell, and so I think human QALYs would benefit from high net worth individuals regarding the core of the EA movement's opinions on effectiveness as highly debatable and listening to voices outside it too. (And obviously whilst many EAs recommend and contribute significantly to global development causes, it's also true that this cause is extremely highly prioritised outside the movement whereas AI risk and "longtermism" - an increasingly emphasised if not universally approved part of the movement - is pretty much exclusive to it, so I think the net direction of most people already committed to human-life centred philanthropy paying attention to the EA movement is going to be to fund the former less and the latter more)
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    Most people already committed to charity - whether centered on humans or animals - are not funding highly effective interventions. Even if you were right that AI research is only as good as the average non-EA-endorsed charity, more attention paid to EA could very easily translate to more value achieved in improving short-term humans and/or animal lives.
    - notahacker 4y ago
      > Even if you were right that AI research is only as good as the average non-EA-endorsed charity No, my point is that funding a company that sells closed-source text and image generation APIs in partnership with Microsoft in the hope this will prevent cyberpunk is a much worse use of philanthropic funds than a typical aid agency that indulges in all the stuff GiveWell frowns on (not doing RCTs to measure the nutrition benefit of feeding the hungry, doing "donor illusion" because it's an extremely cost effective and considerably-more-honest-than-OpenAI way of attracting support etc.) Most interventions not classed as "highly effective" have more plausible claims to effectiveness than some EA darlings So paying less attention to certain EA arguments will, ironically, result in more effective donations. Now I'm aware that EA is a diverse movement and some people give all their money to malaria nets and are doubtful of some of the "longtermist" causes (and EAs make perfectly well-reasoned and well-evidenced arguments for malaria nets, although they're not the only ones making them). But that seems like a particularly good reason not to blog about how sceptics should shut up and donate their own money to their own causes rather than pointing out issues with the EA movement...

zozbot234 4y ago

AI research is not "more EA-approved" than global development - any such claim is peddling gross misinformation. Most EA's donate a lot to global development, healthcare research, animal rights, disaster preparedness and other very mainstream causes.

notahacker 4y ago
> AI research is not "more EA-approved" than global development - any such claim is peddling gross misinformation I haven't made that claim. I have accurately stated that EA organisations have both explicitly criticised many/most aid agencies for not providing enough evidence of efficacy in the form of RCTs etc and explicitly endorsed and funded OpenAI. In my opinion, the latter cause is a less effective and in-need-of-funds one than the average "do not recommend" charity on GiveWell, and so I think human QALYs would benefit from high net worth individuals regarding the core of the EA movement's opinions on effectiveness as highly debatable and listening to voices outside it too. (And obviously whilst many EAs recommend and contribute significantly to global development causes, it's also true that this cause is extremely highly prioritised outside the movement whereas AI risk and "longtermism" - an increasingly emphasised if not universally approved part of the movement - is pretty much exclusive to it, so I think the net direction of most people already committed to human-life centred philanthropy paying attention to the EA movement is going to be to fund the former less and the latter more)
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Most people already committed to charity - whether centered on humans or animals - are not funding highly effective interventions. Even if you were right that AI research is only as good as the average non-EA-endorsed charity, more attention paid to EA could very easily translate to more value achieved in improving short-term humans and/or animal lives.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    > Even if you were right that AI research is only as good as the average non-EA-endorsed charity No, my point is that funding a company that sells closed-source text and image generation APIs in partnership with Microsoft in the hope this will prevent cyberpunk is a much worse use of philanthropic funds than a typical aid agency that indulges in all the stuff GiveWell frowns on (not doing RCTs to measure the nutrition benefit of feeding the hungry, doing "donor illusion" because it's an extremely cost effective and considerably-more-honest-than-OpenAI way of attracting support etc.) Most interventions not classed as "highly effective" have more plausible claims to effectiveness than some EA darlings So paying less attention to certain EA arguments will, ironically, result in more effective donations. Now I'm aware that EA is a diverse movement and some people give all their money to malaria nets and are doubtful of some of the "longtermist" causes (and EAs make perfectly well-reasoned and well-evidenced arguments for malaria nets, although they're not the only ones making them). But that seems like a particularly good reason not to blog about how sceptics should shut up and donate their own money to their own causes rather than pointing out issues with the EA movement...