> 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

> 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?