3 ms·

> This also always felt very American. I'll get rich by paying workers poorly, finding any advantageous loophole I can, screwing customers, but once I'm rich I'

> This also always felt very American. I'll get rich by paying workers poorly, finding any advantageous loophole I can, screwing customers, but once I'm rich I'll donate some of that money to do good... That also feels very inaccurate and misrepresentative of the philosophy. Rather, I'd say: live mindfully in a broken system. Pick a job that meets your needs with minimal intentional side-effects, donate some surplus to bettering the world. Do not be a paperclip maximizer or "ends justify the means".

polygamous_bat 4y ago
That is a good and fair philosophy, except in my personal experience EAs have been very much a "paperclip maximizer" towards their (self-defined) goals of "bringing the most good to the world". From my point of view, claiming that the self-serving class of consultants and cryptobros donating 10% of their is not "true EA" sounds very much like a no true scotsman fallacy.
nl 4y ago
> Rather, I'd say: live mindfully in a broken system. Pick a job that meets your needs with minimal intentional side-effects, donate some surplus to bettering the world. Do not be a paperclip maximizer or "ends justify the means". I think that is a very valid philosophy and one I would agree with. However, EA has a large overlap with longtermism, which has some very paperclip maximizer like features: > Providing we are capable of colonising the rest of our galaxy and nearby ones, a 1% reduction in the risk of extinction on such a time horizon would be the equivalent of saving 1032 lives. In such a perspective, nothing else matters. > That year, Bostrom founded the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford, dedicated to mitigating risk. He elaborated on his theory of longtermism in a book in 2008, urging people to be “good ancestors” by practising “altruism toward our descendants”. He didn’t mean composting or stopping driving, but mitigating existential risks to humanity – “x-risks” in community parlance – from hazards such as advanced artificial intelligence and bio-hacking, that could potentially wipe out or severely deplete humankind. (from the linked article). I think this a very problematic view, because (as noted) almost everything is justifiable if you think you are avoiding extinction of the human race.
didibus 4y ago
> That also feels very inaccurate and misrepresentative of the philosophy. I admit, I don't want to generalize, I'm sure there are many interpretation of the ideas of EA and different people practice it differently. That said, in practice, at least the prominent figures and their prominent groups, my impression is that they fall into what I described. Seems there's an appealing aspect to it that's about being able to be the most cut throat, dirty capitalist where ends justify the means, and where you can feel good about being filthy rich off the back of everyone else, because you'll be efficiently altruistic in donating some of it back. Feels there's a dimension to it that seems to justify taking from the poor to give to the poorer, while keeping a cut for yourself.

polygamous_bat 4y ago

That is a good and fair philosophy, except in my personal experience EAs have been very much a "paperclip maximizer" towards their (self-defined) goals of "bringing the most good to the world". From my point of view, claiming that the self-serving class of consultants and cryptobros donating 10% of their is not "true EA" sounds very much like a no true scotsman fallacy.

nl 4y ago

> Rather, I'd say: live mindfully in a broken system. Pick a job that meets your needs with minimal intentional side-effects, donate some surplus to bettering the world. Do not be a paperclip maximizer or "ends justify the means". I think that is a very valid philosophy and one I would agree with. However, EA has a large overlap with longtermism, which has some very paperclip maximizer like features: > Providing we are capable of colonising the rest of our galaxy and nearby ones, a 1% reduction in the risk of extinction on such a time horizon would be the equivalent of saving 1032 lives. In such a perspective, nothing else matters. > That year, Bostrom founded the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford, dedicated to mitigating risk. He elaborated on his theory of longtermism in a book in 2008, urging people to be “good ancestors” by practising “altruism toward our descendants”. He didn’t mean composting or stopping driving, but mitigating existential risks to humanity – “x-risks” in community parlance – from hazards such as advanced artificial intelligence and bio-hacking, that could potentially wipe out or severely deplete humankind. (from the linked article). I think this a very problematic view, because (as noted) almost everything is justifiable if you think you are avoiding extinction of the human race.

didibus 4y ago

> That also feels very inaccurate and misrepresentative of the philosophy. I admit, I don't want to generalize, I'm sure there are many interpretation of the ideas of EA and different people practice it differently. That said, in practice, at least the prominent figures and their prominent groups, my impression is that they fall into what I described. Seems there's an appealing aspect to it that's about being able to be the most cut throat, dirty capitalist where ends justify the means, and where you can feel good about being filthy rich off the back of everyone else, because you'll be efficiently altruistic in donating some of it back. Feels there's a dimension to it that seems to justify taking from the poor to give to the poorer, while keeping a cut for yourself.