4 ms·

> 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

> 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

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...