3 ms·

> The issue is that the effective altruism crowd are focused exclusively on AI safety. How many EA people do you know? That seems to get the most clicks, but

by Natsu 4y ago

> The issue is that the effective altruism crowd are focused exclusively on AI safety. How many EA people do you know? That seems to get the most clicks, but I usually associate them with things like mosquito bed nets to help prevent malaria, because that's a far more common topic in my experience. I'm sure you can find particular people who are all about the AI risk stuff that seems pretty wild to me, too. But when you say "focused exclusively" I feel like you may have mostly seen news articles about wild AI stuff and not the average EA enthusiast who spends their time talking about picking efficient charities.

aetherson 4y ago
As someone who is not an EA, but has been peripherally aware of them for years, the bed nets stuff was their big thing until maybe three years ago, but it genuinely is the case that a lot of their energy had recently redirected to AI safety and other X-risks. That isn't to say that the malaria stuff isn't still a big topic, but there has been a shift.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Givewell is still where most EA money flows and they are almost exclusively focused on mosquito nets and other malaria intervention.
- bakuninsbart 4y ago
  Yep, I think the community is pretty evenly split amongst "longtermist"-focused people, and this includes all the X-Risk stuff, as well as the more classical "Global Health & Happiness" people. At this point they are actually relatively distinct groups I'd wager. One thing missing from the article is that, at least in my experience, the vast majority of the opportunists are in the longtermist camp. Longtermist topics are the perfect combination of high-prestige and smart sounding with a complete lack of accountability, because the impact of research or projects won't materialize for decades. Ironically, in practice it directly contradicts the founding tenants of EA, despite being a logical conclusion of the underlying moral philosophy.

by Natsu 4y ago

aetherson 4y ago

As someone who is not an EA, but has been peripherally aware of them for years, the bed nets stuff was their big thing until maybe three years ago, but it genuinely is the case that a lot of their energy had recently redirected to AI safety and other X-risks. That isn't to say that the malaria stuff isn't still a big topic, but there has been a shift.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
Givewell is still where most EA money flows and they are almost exclusively focused on mosquito nets and other malaria intervention.
bakuninsbart 4y ago
Yep, I think the community is pretty evenly split amongst "longtermist"-focused people, and this includes all the X-Risk stuff, as well as the more classical "Global Health & Happiness" people. At this point they are actually relatively distinct groups I'd wager. One thing missing from the article is that, at least in my experience, the vast majority of the opportunists are in the longtermist camp. Longtermist topics are the perfect combination of high-prestige and smart sounding with a complete lack of accountability, because the impact of research or projects won't materialize for decades. Ironically, in practice it directly contradicts the founding tenants of EA, despite being a logical conclusion of the underlying moral philosophy.