3 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
epiccoleman 3y ago
> Earning to give. This is exactly the kind of "baby with the bathwater" thing that bothers me - when I hear "earning to give" I don't think of SBF, or LessWrong, or even Slate Star Codex - I think of Peter Singer, or Will McAskill. The "philosophical" angle is where I first encountered the concept, not the dumb "rationalist" stuff about how preventing AI apocalypse now counts as charity to all the projected lives across the recovered future of humanity. And I get it, it's not necessarily fair or accurate to separate those two origins when they've become so intertwined, but I share your concern about a genuinely good, righteous core idea getting tossed out because one public figure who espoused it turned out to be a crook. (Or because an army of weird nerds on LessWrong does a bunch of mystical fantasy "utilitarian math" on their weird little forum).
- davidgerard 3y ago
  There's a lot to Singer's basic idea, I concur. There's not to MacAskill's - he's loudly and explicitly into 10^54 hypothetical emulated future humans over anyone alive and needing help now. And fundamentally, you can't get away from the EAs being the guys who spent the charity money on not one, but two castles. Every atrocity in history was justified as being for the greater good.
- jowea 3y ago
  > This is exactly the kind of "baby with the bathwater" thing that bothers me - when I hear "earning to give" I don't think of SBF, or LessWrong, or even Slate Star Codex - I think of Peter Singer, or Will McAskill. The "philosophical" angle is where I first encountered the concept, not the dumb "rationalist" stuff about how preventing AI apocalypse now counts as charity to all the projected lives across the recovered future of humanity. I feel a lot of us here in this thread heard about this stuff before, but I get the impression EA became famous because of Bankman-Fried, so yeah. As for specifically earning to give, yeah it also has defensible roots. But the idea of doing anything that pays a lot of money, even if it's something whose contribution to society is not very good or even negative, can easily go wrong in my opinion. And let's get real here, how many people will actually give the money after they get rich or get a high income and not change their attitude or fall into the hedonistic treadmill? Even for the people who are genuine about earning to give and not just using it as cover for proudly pursing their own material wealth and buying some Caribbean real estate?

by jowea 3y ago

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.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

epiccoleman 3y ago

> Earning to give. This is exactly the kind of "baby with the bathwater" thing that bothers me - when I hear "earning to give" I don't think of SBF, or LessWrong, or even Slate Star Codex - I think of Peter Singer, or Will McAskill. The "philosophical" angle is where I first encountered the concept, not the dumb "rationalist" stuff about how preventing AI apocalypse now counts as charity to all the projected lives across the recovered future of humanity. And I get it, it's not necessarily fair or accurate to separate those two origins when they've become so intertwined, but I share your concern about a genuinely good, righteous core idea getting tossed out because one public figure who espoused it turned out to be a crook. (Or because an army of weird nerds on LessWrong does a bunch of mystical fantasy "utilitarian math" on their weird little forum).

davidgerard 3y ago
There's a lot to Singer's basic idea, I concur. There's not to MacAskill's - he's loudly and explicitly into 10^54 hypothetical emulated future humans over anyone alive and needing help now. And fundamentally, you can't get away from the EAs being the guys who spent the charity money on not one, but two castles. Every atrocity in history was justified as being for the greater good.
jowea 3y ago
> This is exactly the kind of "baby with the bathwater" thing that bothers me - when I hear "earning to give" I don't think of SBF, or LessWrong, or even Slate Star Codex - I think of Peter Singer, or Will McAskill. The "philosophical" angle is where I first encountered the concept, not the dumb "rationalist" stuff about how preventing AI apocalypse now counts as charity to all the projected lives across the recovered future of humanity. I feel a lot of us here in this thread heard about this stuff before, but I get the impression EA became famous because of Bankman-Fried, so yeah. As for specifically earning to give, yeah it also has defensible roots. But the idea of doing anything that pays a lot of money, even if it's something whose contribution to society is not very good or even negative, can easily go wrong in my opinion. And let's get real here, how many people will actually give the money after they get rich or get a high income and not change their attitude or fall into the hedonistic treadmill? Even for the people who are genuine about earning to give and not just using it as cover for proudly pursing their own material wealth and buying some Caribbean real estate?