4 ms·

EA is not the same as Utilitarianism. This is the butchered message without nuance that people are reading in relatively shallow posts like the one we're commen

by eddsh1994 4y ago

EA is not the same as Utilitarianism. This is the butchered message without nuance that people are reading in relatively shallow posts like the one we're commenting about. https://www.effectivealtruism.org/faqs-criticism-objections https://www.effectivealtruism.org/faqs-criticism-objections has a small paragraph on the differences. Having been involved with EA since 2017 in my own small way I can absolutely say with confidence it is not the same. Ends do not justify the means. It is simply meant to be a guiding philosophy to how you donate; treat all lives equally and donate focusing on lives saved per dollar. This should be backed by research proving it's effectiveness and can be unintuitive. There is a vocal longtermist view point that lives in the future should be valued the same resulting in some pretty weird ideas but I ignore most of that.

KurvaKing 4y ago
tptacek 4y ago
The ends don't justify the means for you, which is laudable, but clearly for some leaders in the EA community, they do. This is the standard critique of "longtermist" EA, which hypnotizes itself with huge numbers of extrapolated future entities to justify harming people today.
- yboris 4y ago
  Where do EAs advocate for harming people today? I'm not aware of any nefarious outcomes that come from caring about making the future go well.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - eddsh1994 4y ago
    I guess the argument they have is if you have someone suffering today and $10,000 will end their suffering, longtermist EA’s will argue that $10k should be spent on AI alignment research because theoretically AI could end human life & theoretically there could be trillions more humans if that doesn’t happy so trillions of lives > 1 life (valuing existing and future lives the same). I don’t subscribe to this view but it does exist and ‘harming people today’ to make ‘the future go well’ is a vocal minority within EA.
- eddsh1994 4y ago
  > which hypnotizes itself with huge numbers of extrapolated future entities to justify harming people today. Any sources on this? Or do you mean things like reducing energy usage to tackle climate change?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Reducing energy to tackle climate change seems pretty unimpeachable. Directing money away from developing world medical charities in order to fund wealthy people riding bikes while thinking about AI seems apposite though.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Sidenote: today I learned the word "apposite" and my day is vastly better.
      - KurvaKing 4y ago
    - eddsh1994 4y ago
      I both strongly agree and disagree with you here. > Directing money away from developing world medical charities in order to fund wealthy people riding bikes while thinking about AI seems apposite though. I dislike the whole longtermism stuff and am very vocal about that when I can be. Lives now matter more than hypothetical lives in the future. I've written about this on the EA forums before. However, if EA was to die today, I strongly believe the number of funds to developing world medical charities would decrease! Why? Because people normally think local when it comes to charity, especially larger donations, such as the mantra "charity starts at home". EA has led many people to really think about this and review the charities they donate to, drank the koolaid of being "Effective" with their charitable donations, and now 'regular' people (like me) are donating a good chunk of their pay checks to world medical charities (based on which ones are doing the better job, such as those suggested by givewell). Overall even if EA has some bad actors (like SBF), and some stupid research goals (imo), and some money that seems fairly... circular if you know what I mean (EA Infrastructure Funds), I believe the general message is strong.

KurvaKing 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

The ends don't justify the means for you, which is laudable, but clearly for some leaders in the EA community, they do. This is the standard critique of "longtermist" EA, which hypnotizes itself with huge numbers of extrapolated future entities to justify harming people today.

yboris 4y ago
Where do EAs advocate for harming people today? I'm not aware of any nefarious outcomes that come from caring about making the future go well.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- eddsh1994 4y ago
  I guess the argument they have is if you have someone suffering today and $10,000 will end their suffering, longtermist EA’s will argue that $10k should be spent on AI alignment research because theoretically AI could end human life & theoretically there could be trillions more humans if that doesn’t happy so trillions of lives > 1 life (valuing existing and future lives the same). I don’t subscribe to this view but it does exist and ‘harming people today’ to make ‘the future go well’ is a vocal minority within EA.
eddsh1994 4y ago
> which hypnotizes itself with huge numbers of extrapolated future entities to justify harming people today. Any sources on this? Or do you mean things like reducing energy usage to tackle climate change?
- tptacek 4y ago
  Reducing energy to tackle climate change seems pretty unimpeachable. Directing money away from developing world medical charities in order to fund wealthy people riding bikes while thinking about AI seems apposite though.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Sidenote: today I learned the word "apposite" and my day is vastly better.
    - KurvaKing 4y ago
  - eddsh1994 4y ago
    I both strongly agree and disagree with you here. > Directing money away from developing world medical charities in order to fund wealthy people riding bikes while thinking about AI seems apposite though. I dislike the whole longtermism stuff and am very vocal about that when I can be. Lives now matter more than hypothetical lives in the future. I've written about this on the EA forums before. However, if EA was to die today, I strongly believe the number of funds to developing world medical charities would decrease! Why? Because people normally think local when it comes to charity, especially larger donations, such as the mantra "charity starts at home". EA has led many people to really think about this and review the charities they donate to, drank the koolaid of being "Effective" with their charitable donations, and now 'regular' people (like me) are donating a good chunk of their pay checks to world medical charities (based on which ones are doing the better job, such as those suggested by givewell). Overall even if EA has some bad actors (like SBF), and some stupid research goals (imo), and some money that seems fairly... circular if you know what I mean (EA Infrastructure Funds), I believe the general message is strong.