7 ms·

Like most things: EA as a concept is fine. Finding the "maximal" way to improve the lives of others is great, and finding better ways to contribute than charity

Like most things: EA as a concept is fine. Finding the "maximal" way to improve the lives of others is great, and finding better ways to contribute than charity and volunteering is honorable. The issue is when people take it to the extreme (like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad, because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money and recruiting to contribute more charity and volunteering), or just sidestepping "altruism" entirely and using the name and community as a stepping stone to push your unrelated scam. I don't know whether or not SBF genuinely believed in effective altruism, but if he did, he let the "principles" override common sense.

emmanueloga_ 4y ago
Effective altruism (EA) is a philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis". [1] Seems like a good idea, if only just to have some sort of open-system for rating charities. I suspect the issue is everything that comes around the idea, specially... people. The problem is always people :-). Perhaps a "Michelin Guide to Charities" would be easier to market and explain? :-p My favorite explanation of how "effective altruism" works is this SMBC comic [2]. :-) -- 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism 2: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13
- bradbeattie 4y ago
  > if only just to have some sort of open-system for rating charities While the following examples aren't exactly _open_ systems, some organizations address the niche you highlight. Examples: https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/, https://animalcharityevaluators.org/ https://animalcharityevaluators.org/
  - emmanueloga_ 4y ago
    I think _open_ is the important part: Would make sense if anyone could come up with the score, following some "standard". That way one could make sure that no specific grader has incentives to give good scores speculatively (or even maliciously).
    - itsdrewmiller 4y ago
      I encourage you to explore givewell's site. They are very transparent about their ratings and processes.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  The problem with EA and other utilitarian systems of thought is two-fold. Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. Secondly, unfettered by principles other than the end justifying the means, you can easily turn those aforementioned biases into justifications for committing horrible acts. Mass murder, or evidently, theft on a massive scale. For instance: "The technological revolution was a disaster for the human race... so I'm going to murder a few people to draw attention to my manifesto against technology." "Social inequality is a disaster for the majority of my countrymen, so I'm going to murder the Bourgeoisie" "My altruism is more effective than anybody else's, so I'm going to steal everybody else's money so that I can put it to better use." How do you stop this shit? Deontological ethics. Don't murder, because murder is wrong. Don't steal, because stealing is wrong. Damn the consequences, stick to simple principles such as these.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    >Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their hands and donate to whatever causes since who knows? Surely not. Once we acknowledge that these questions can be tackled empirically, that's what EA tries to do. Is there room for bias in this process? Absolutely. Does that justify embracing some sort of epistemic nihilism? Absolutely not.
    - davidgay 4y ago
      > > Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. > Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their hands and donate to whatever causes since who knows? No, it implies that you shouldn't lecture others that you have the one true answer as to the best path forwards. You are free to (and in fact should) use your best judgment in your own personal choices, just don't confuse that with absolute truth.
      - yanderekko 4y ago
        I don't think EA institutions argue that they have the One True Answer. They just often give recommendations - "eg. if you care about maximizing QALY overall, we recommend charities X, Y, and Z." If I don't care about QALY maximization, fine. But if I do, why would I not listen to the recommendations?
cscurmudgeon 4y ago
Sorry, it is not a "fine" concept. It is just utilitarianism with modern marketing and pure utilitarianism has problems. See one example below where utilitarianism's suggestion goes against what almost everyone considers ethical: You can take 10 healthy organs from one person without any social connections and use the organs to save 10 terminal patients who would otherwise die. EA effectively sanctions robbing a million people to help a million people + 1
- itsdrewmiller 4y ago
  EA doesn't do that - it's a much smaller concept than utilitarianism. (Which also wouldn't always support that conclusion.)
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    But it has very noticeably begun falling into the same traps long discovered and recognized by utilitarianism. EA now has a significant contingent that is most focused on very unlikely far future outcomes because they would be incredibly bad for an unimaginably vast number of people if they did occur eg unbounded utility. That's pascal's mugging! The movement is based on the same ideas and values and it's running into the same problems. These similarities don't inherently discredit the movement, but not having a clear awareness of these faults in their framework and a plan for avoiding them is very worrying.
    - nl 4y ago
      > EA now has a significant contingent that is most focused on very unlikely far future outcomes because they would be incredibly bad for an unimaginably vast number of people if they did occur eg unbounded utility. That's pascal's mugging! Indeed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging (Although the term itself comes from the EA community)
    - _yb2s 4y ago
      I am very confused about why the rationalists, who first identified the concept of pascal's mugging seem to have a huge number of initiatives which seem to be examples of falling directly into the pascal's mugging trap. With all of these examples, and pascal's mugging itself, there is an obvious error: there should be a practical upper bound on the adverse outcome you're concerned about, at which all higher values are effectively the same to you.
wombatpm 4y ago
Seems more Ends Justify the Means when you start talking about future lives saved
- timy2shoes 4y ago
  That’s the sense I got too, especially after reading the fellatious piece on SBF from sequoia capital. Trying too hard to justify getting rich, because that would theoretically help the world, in the end, regardless of the means to get there.
- akira2501 4y ago
  It's the modern version of a religious indulgence. Worse, as you point out, all it offers is more undue and unjustified meddling in peoples lives to make up for unfair and injudicious meddling in other peoples financial affairs. More cynically, you're giving hand outs to people who yet need to learn to be productive, while destroying the lives of people who were trying to leverage their own productivity. I think it has negative value, doubling harming progress for the sake of apology.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    You seem to be objecting to alturism not effective alturism.
yanderekko 4y ago
>The issue is when people take it to the extreme (like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad, because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money and recruiting to contribute more charity and volunteering) I mean, the concern here is that coming off as an asshole can be self-defeating, not that these views are actually incorrect, right? Seems like it's like being an atheist - an "extreme view" for many and it's a topic that may need to be dealt with with caution sometimes but that's really mostly a critique of the sensitivities of others.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  1. Both of them are concerns. 2. In case you are really lacking that much self awareness, yes, you are coming off as one in this conversation. You may call me "sensitive" and feel better about yourself now.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    >In case you are really lacking that much self awareness, yes, you are coming off as one in this conversation. You may call me "sensitive" and feel better about yourself now. Isn't this just tone policing then?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  No there is also something bad about rejecting less quantifiable forms of charity as well. Movements grow out of communities and through solidarity and you build neither by mailing a check across the world and considering your obligation met. I do think it's good to optimize money spent for these things much of the time but it's also just inhuman to have no place, or respect, for forms of charity that are based on, form and reinforce human connection.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    >No there is also something bad about rejecting less quantifiable forms of charity as well. I don't think EA argues for this. I guess it depends on what you mean by "less quantifiable." >I do think it's good to optimize money spent for these things much of the time but it's also just inhuman to have no place, or respect, for forms of charity that are based on, form and reinforce human connection. Describing this as "inhuman" is pretty extreme. In any case I think if you acknowledge that you're indulging in various non-charitable preferences through your donations I don't think EA would offer a serious critique beyond pointing out that you could be doing better. I think a major goal of EA though is to get people to truly wrangle with their biases here. These organizings are pragmatic - they're not trying to chide us into being moral saints, but just "giving what we can" - a popular EA slogan.
nl 4y ago
I think that longtermism (mentioned in the article) is bad though, both as a concept and in practice.
- concordDance 4y ago
  What counts as longtermism though? Preserving archaeological sites rather than bulldozing them? Fighting CO2 emissions? Trying to avoid AGI risk you think will happen in less than a century?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nl 4y ago
    The longtermism as thought of by Bostrom etc is a view that (potential) future lives are as valuable as lives now. Part of the danger is the name. I support long term thinking! I love things like the Long Now project! But this specific viewpoint is very wrong.
mtrycz2 4y ago
The whole thing reminds me of "I, Robot", when the AI realizes that the greater good for humanity can't care for themselves, it is to be ruled by the AI for good. This is the kind of vibe I get from this writeup, and the level of separation from humanity these people operate.
- TheMaskedCoder 4y ago
  Why wait for AI to take over when you can have people run the same calculations and come to the same conclusions?
- FormerBandmate 4y ago
  Incidentally, literally every dictator to ever live also has come to that conclusion
AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
> like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad, because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money This is the part of EA that triggers a lot of red flags for me. Making money, or rather making significant money, necessitates participation in a system of exploitation that is largely responsible for the ills the charitable donations are meant to alleviate in the first place. Maximizing that money necessitates optimizing the exploitation. the whole thing just seems like an exercise in morality-washing one's own greed. Lies, damn lies, and statistics perpetrated with "rationality".
- edanm 4y ago
  > This is the part of EA that triggers a lot of red flags for me. Making money, or rather making significant money, necessitates participation in a system of exploitation that is largely responsible for the ills the charitable donations are meant to alleviate in the first place. I mean, given that you think that I understand where you're coming from. But just note that many, many people would highly disagree with that characterization. I don't think our "system", whatever that means, is evil. I think it's pretty good, definitely better than other things people have come up with. And I don't think you need to give to charity to morality-wash greed. I think it's just the right thing to do.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    You missed the major point of being the exact capitalists that are the reason for charity to be so necessary. That’s white washing greed and self interest. Get to have a better life selfishly then donate the money to be morally better.
    - edanm 4y ago
      No I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it. Looking at other countries that don't have capitalism, everyone is worse off. I don't think capitalism is the reason charity is necessary. I think the world starts default-bad for humans, by default we don't have anywhere close to the living we want, and over the years, many technological advanacements, including capitalism, have slowly made most humans far better off. This is fairly clear in the historical record or in comparing different countries. (At least to me. Most people seem to disagree with this, but I honestly think they're wrong.)

emmanueloga_ 4y ago

Effective altruism (EA) is a philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis". [1] Seems like a good idea, if only just to have some sort of open-system for rating charities. I suspect the issue is everything that comes around the idea, specially... people. The problem is always people :-). Perhaps a "Michelin Guide to Charities" would be easier to market and explain? :-p My favorite explanation of how "effective altruism" works is this SMBC comic [2]. :-) -- 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism 2: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13

bradbeattie 4y ago
> if only just to have some sort of open-system for rating charities While the following examples aren't exactly _open_ systems, some organizations address the niche you highlight. Examples: https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/, https://animalcharityevaluators.org/ https://animalcharityevaluators.org/
- emmanueloga_ 4y ago
  I think _open_ is the important part: Would make sense if anyone could come up with the score, following some "standard". That way one could make sure that no specific grader has incentives to give good scores speculatively (or even maliciously).
  - itsdrewmiller 4y ago
    I encourage you to explore givewell's site. They are very transparent about their ratings and processes.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
The problem with EA and other utilitarian systems of thought is two-fold. Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. Secondly, unfettered by principles other than the end justifying the means, you can easily turn those aforementioned biases into justifications for committing horrible acts. Mass murder, or evidently, theft on a massive scale. For instance: "The technological revolution was a disaster for the human race... so I'm going to murder a few people to draw attention to my manifesto against technology." "Social inequality is a disaster for the majority of my countrymen, so I'm going to murder the Bourgeoisie" "My altruism is more effective than anybody else's, so I'm going to steal everybody else's money so that I can put it to better use." How do you stop this shit? Deontological ethics. Don't murder, because murder is wrong. Don't steal, because stealing is wrong. Damn the consequences, stick to simple principles such as these.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  >Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their hands and donate to whatever causes since who knows? Surely not. Once we acknowledge that these questions can be tackled empirically, that's what EA tries to do. Is there room for bias in this process? Absolutely. Does that justify embracing some sort of epistemic nihilism? Absolutely not.
  - davidgay 4y ago
    > > Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. > Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their hands and donate to whatever causes since who knows? No, it implies that you shouldn't lecture others that you have the one true answer as to the best path forwards. You are free to (and in fact should) use your best judgment in your own personal choices, just don't confuse that with absolute truth.
    - yanderekko 4y ago
      I don't think EA institutions argue that they have the One True Answer. They just often give recommendations - "eg. if you care about maximizing QALY overall, we recommend charities X, Y, and Z." If I don't care about QALY maximization, fine. But if I do, why would I not listen to the recommendations?

cscurmudgeon 4y ago

Sorry, it is not a "fine" concept. It is just utilitarianism with modern marketing and pure utilitarianism has problems. See one example below where utilitarianism's suggestion goes against what almost everyone considers ethical: You can take 10 healthy organs from one person without any social connections and use the organs to save 10 terminal patients who would otherwise die. EA effectively sanctions robbing a million people to help a million people + 1

itsdrewmiller 4y ago
EA doesn't do that - it's a much smaller concept than utilitarianism. (Which also wouldn't always support that conclusion.)
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  But it has very noticeably begun falling into the same traps long discovered and recognized by utilitarianism. EA now has a significant contingent that is most focused on very unlikely far future outcomes because they would be incredibly bad for an unimaginably vast number of people if they did occur eg unbounded utility. That's pascal's mugging! The movement is based on the same ideas and values and it's running into the same problems. These similarities don't inherently discredit the movement, but not having a clear awareness of these faults in their framework and a plan for avoiding them is very worrying.
  - nl 4y ago
    > EA now has a significant contingent that is most focused on very unlikely far future outcomes because they would be incredibly bad for an unimaginably vast number of people if they did occur eg unbounded utility. That's pascal's mugging! Indeed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging (Although the term itself comes from the EA community)
  - _yb2s 4y ago
    I am very confused about why the rationalists, who first identified the concept of pascal's mugging seem to have a huge number of initiatives which seem to be examples of falling directly into the pascal's mugging trap. With all of these examples, and pascal's mugging itself, there is an obvious error: there should be a practical upper bound on the adverse outcome you're concerned about, at which all higher values are effectively the same to you.

wombatpm 4y ago

Seems more Ends Justify the Means when you start talking about future lives saved

timy2shoes 4y ago
That’s the sense I got too, especially after reading the fellatious piece on SBF from sequoia capital. Trying too hard to justify getting rich, because that would theoretically help the world, in the end, regardless of the means to get there.
akira2501 4y ago
It's the modern version of a religious indulgence. Worse, as you point out, all it offers is more undue and unjustified meddling in peoples lives to make up for unfair and injudicious meddling in other peoples financial affairs. More cynically, you're giving hand outs to people who yet need to learn to be productive, while destroying the lives of people who were trying to leverage their own productivity. I think it has negative value, doubling harming progress for the sake of apology.
- bawolff 4y ago
  You seem to be objecting to alturism not effective alturism.

yanderekko 4y ago

>The issue is when people take it to the extreme (like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad, because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money and recruiting to contribute more charity and volunteering) I mean, the concern here is that coming off as an asshole can be self-defeating, not that these views are actually incorrect, right? Seems like it's like being an atheist - an "extreme view" for many and it's a topic that may need to be dealt with with caution sometimes but that's really mostly a critique of the sensitivities of others.

polygamous_bat 4y ago
1. Both of them are concerns. 2. In case you are really lacking that much self awareness, yes, you are coming off as one in this conversation. You may call me "sensitive" and feel better about yourself now.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  >In case you are really lacking that much self awareness, yes, you are coming off as one in this conversation. You may call me "sensitive" and feel better about yourself now. Isn't this just tone policing then?
giraffe_lady 4y ago
No there is also something bad about rejecting less quantifiable forms of charity as well. Movements grow out of communities and through solidarity and you build neither by mailing a check across the world and considering your obligation met. I do think it's good to optimize money spent for these things much of the time but it's also just inhuman to have no place, or respect, for forms of charity that are based on, form and reinforce human connection.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  >No there is also something bad about rejecting less quantifiable forms of charity as well. I don't think EA argues for this. I guess it depends on what you mean by "less quantifiable." >I do think it's good to optimize money spent for these things much of the time but it's also just inhuman to have no place, or respect, for forms of charity that are based on, form and reinforce human connection. Describing this as "inhuman" is pretty extreme. In any case I think if you acknowledge that you're indulging in various non-charitable preferences through your donations I don't think EA would offer a serious critique beyond pointing out that you could be doing better. I think a major goal of EA though is to get people to truly wrangle with their biases here. These organizings are pragmatic - they're not trying to chide us into being moral saints, but just "giving what we can" - a popular EA slogan.

nl 4y ago

I think that longtermism (mentioned in the article) is bad though, both as a concept and in practice.

concordDance 4y ago
What counts as longtermism though? Preserving archaeological sites rather than bulldozing them? Fighting CO2 emissions? Trying to avoid AGI risk you think will happen in less than a century?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nl 4y ago
  The longtermism as thought of by Bostrom etc is a view that (potential) future lives are as valuable as lives now. Part of the danger is the name. I support long term thinking! I love things like the Long Now project! But this specific viewpoint is very wrong.

mtrycz2 4y ago

The whole thing reminds me of "I, Robot", when the AI realizes that the greater good for humanity can't care for themselves, it is to be ruled by the AI for good. This is the kind of vibe I get from this writeup, and the level of separation from humanity these people operate.

TheMaskedCoder 4y ago
Why wait for AI to take over when you can have people run the same calculations and come to the same conclusions?
FormerBandmate 4y ago
Incidentally, literally every dictator to ever live also has come to that conclusion

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago

> like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad, because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money This is the part of EA that triggers a lot of red flags for me. Making money, or rather making significant money, necessitates participation in a system of exploitation that is largely responsible for the ills the charitable donations are meant to alleviate in the first place. Maximizing that money necessitates optimizing the exploitation. the whole thing just seems like an exercise in morality-washing one's own greed. Lies, damn lies, and statistics perpetrated with "rationality".

edanm 4y ago
> This is the part of EA that triggers a lot of red flags for me. Making money, or rather making significant money, necessitates participation in a system of exploitation that is largely responsible for the ills the charitable donations are meant to alleviate in the first place. I mean, given that you think that I understand where you're coming from. But just note that many, many people would highly disagree with that characterization. I don't think our "system", whatever that means, is evil. I think it's pretty good, definitely better than other things people have come up with. And I don't think you need to give to charity to morality-wash greed. I think it's just the right thing to do.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  You missed the major point of being the exact capitalists that are the reason for charity to be so necessary. That’s white washing greed and self interest. Get to have a better life selfishly then donate the money to be morally better.
  - edanm 4y ago
    No I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it. Looking at other countries that don't have capitalism, everyone is worse off. I don't think capitalism is the reason charity is necessary. I think the world starts default-bad for humans, by default we don't have anywhere close to the living we want, and over the years, many technological advanacements, including capitalism, have slowly made most humans far better off. This is fairly clear in the historical record or in comparing different countries. (At least to me. Most people seem to disagree with this, but I honestly think they're wrong.)