7 ms·

I'm not sure I fully understand the article. Can someone explain the connection with Elon Musk and state sponsored distractions? I'm also confused by the "rat

by aeonik 3y ago

I'm not sure I fully understand the article. Can someone explain the connection with Elon Musk and state sponsored distractions? I'm also confused by the "rationalist" talk. Otherwise interesting set of information on the article that I wasn't aware of.

nyssos 3y ago
> Can someone explain the connection with Elon Musk and state sponsored distractions? I think you misread "stage-managed". They're saying that billionaires' public personas are often deliberately constructed by their PR teams in order to serve their business interests. > I'm also confused by the "rationalist" talk. Rationalists are a Bay Area/internet subculture.
- aeonik 3y ago
  Makes a lot of sense, thank you!
epiccoleman 3y ago
The rationalist stuff really reads like the guy has a preexisting bone to pick. I get that LessWrong has gotten pretty navel-gazing, and that the EA community took a real beating when all this FTX stuff came to the surface. But the supposed critique of Scott Alexander is nonsensical. The article tees up this supposed big blow against him by framing the "amphetamines" section as though his single article about Adderall somehow is the root cause of SBF's apparent drug abuse. That's pretty tenuous at best, and reads like the kind of thing you'd only write if you're desperate to find a way to dunk on "rationalists". I really don't understand the hate boner everyone has for effective altruism - the whole core of the idea was just to choose charities that get the most value for the money donated. Maybe it's the cold (and admittedly quite handwavy ) utilitarian calculus of the whole thing that turns people off. But just because SBF was a fraud doesn't mean the whole EA movement is bullshit, and when you look at how money is spent by some "popular" charities like the Komen Foundation, EA looks pretty logical to me.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  People don't like it because it reads more like cult-lite than a coherent worldview or philosophy, whatever the core is. Goobers like SBF show that the reading isn't totally off base.
- jowea 3y ago
  > I really don't understand the hate boner everyone has for effective altruism - the whole core of the idea was just to choose charities that get the most value for the money donated I admit to not doing in depth research but suspect the problem is with all that goes beyond that core idea. I really doubt that many people are genuinely complaining that someone decided to measure how effective are modern wood stoves at reducing CO2 emissions. It's the fact that Sam Bankman-Fried could and did use the ideology as cover. The actual movement taking his money and giving him cover. Some of the weirder longtermist stuff that is at the minimum much harder to justify as charity to the everyman. Earning to give. The demographics of the movement. And a general feeling that at least the part of EA that Sam related to is a 21st century version of an ideology allowing the powerful to get an excuse for whatever they feel like doing from the present day equivalent of the priesthood. > But just because SBF was a fraud doesn't mean the whole EA movement is bullshit, I think a lot of people heard about EA because of and in relation to Sam Bankman-Fried. Of course people are going to find the message suspect when the first messenger turns out to be a fraudster using it as cover. edit: and I say this as someone who is at least a bit concerned that this core idea may get hit in the crossfire.
  - xg15 3y ago
    > And a general feeling that at least the part of EA that Sam related to is a 21st century version of an ideology allowing the powerful to get an excuse for whatever they feel like doing from the present day equivalent of the priesthood. I think this is the core of what irks me of the movement: it's one thing that their reasoning is often simplistic and arrogantly assumes you can distill the entire world, including its far future, down to some simple formulas - but they are also far too attracted to "repugnant conclusions" than for me to be comfortable. I find it suspicious how much of their reasoning just happens to justify assholish behaviour and promotes a social darwinist survival-of-the-strongest worldview, all in the name of altruism.

by aeonik 3y ago

nyssos 3y ago

> Can someone explain the connection with Elon Musk and state sponsored distractions? I think you misread "stage-managed". They're saying that billionaires' public personas are often deliberately constructed by their PR teams in order to serve their business interests. > I'm also confused by the "rationalist" talk. Rationalists are a Bay Area/internet subculture.

aeonik 3y ago
Makes a lot of sense, thank you!

epiccoleman 3y ago

The rationalist stuff really reads like the guy has a preexisting bone to pick. I get that LessWrong has gotten pretty navel-gazing, and that the EA community took a real beating when all this FTX stuff came to the surface. But the supposed critique of Scott Alexander is nonsensical. The article tees up this supposed big blow against him by framing the "amphetamines" section as though his single article about Adderall somehow is the root cause of SBF's apparent drug abuse. That's pretty tenuous at best, and reads like the kind of thing you'd only write if you're desperate to find a way to dunk on "rationalists". I really don't understand the hate boner everyone has for effective altruism - the whole core of the idea was just to choose charities that get the most value for the money donated. Maybe it's the cold (and admittedly quite handwavy ) utilitarian calculus of the whole thing that turns people off. But just because SBF was a fraud doesn't mean the whole EA movement is bullshit, and when you look at how money is spent by some "popular" charities like the Komen Foundation, EA looks pretty logical to me.

ryanklee 3y ago
People don't like it because it reads more like cult-lite than a coherent worldview or philosophy, whatever the core is. Goobers like SBF show that the reading isn't totally off base.
jowea 3y ago
> I really don't understand the hate boner everyone has for effective altruism - the whole core of the idea was just to choose charities that get the most value for the money donated I admit to not doing in depth research but suspect the problem is with all that goes beyond that core idea. I really doubt that many people are genuinely complaining that someone decided to measure how effective are modern wood stoves at reducing CO2 emissions. It's the fact that Sam Bankman-Fried could and did use the ideology as cover. The actual movement taking his money and giving him cover. Some of the weirder longtermist stuff that is at the minimum much harder to justify as charity to the everyman. Earning to give. The demographics of the movement. And a general feeling that at least the part of EA that Sam related to is a 21st century version of an ideology allowing the powerful to get an excuse for whatever they feel like doing from the present day equivalent of the priesthood. > But just because SBF was a fraud doesn't mean the whole EA movement is bullshit, I think a lot of people heard about EA because of and in relation to Sam Bankman-Fried. Of course people are going to find the message suspect when the first messenger turns out to be a fraudster using it as cover. edit: and I say this as someone who is at least a bit concerned that this core idea may get hit in the crossfire.
- xg15 3y ago
  > And a general feeling that at least the part of EA that Sam related to is a 21st century version of an ideology allowing the powerful to get an excuse for whatever they feel like doing from the present day equivalent of the priesthood. I think this is the core of what irks me of the movement: it's one thing that their reasoning is often simplistic and arrogantly assumes you can distill the entire world, including its far future, down to some simple formulas - but they are also far too attracted to "repugnant conclusions" than for me to be comfortable. I find it suspicious how much of their reasoning just happens to justify assholish behaviour and promotes a social darwinist survival-of-the-strongest worldview, all in the name of altruism.