8 ms·

I think the QALY criticism grazes the real fundamental problem with EA. You can't really quantify "good" good enough to create a meaningful measure. Being alive

by kr0bat 3y ago

I think the QALY criticism grazes the real fundamental problem with EA. You can't really quantify "good" good enough to create a meaningful measure. Being alive is better than being dead (in almost all cases). Being sighted is better than being blind. But is losing an arm objectively worse than losing a leg? Who has it worse, a gay man in a seriously homophobic country or a woman in a severely misogynistic country? Sure, donating money to an animal you find cute may not be the best use of money, objectively. But maybe it's better to be openly subjective, lest we end up codifying our own subjective beliefs.

Waterluvian 3y ago
I think there is no shortage of objective ways to do good. If we skip over those, seeking the more subjective ways, it is probably in service to one's self, not to the goal of doing good.
- cma 3y ago
  They bought two effective altruist castles because they said the ambiance would help their thinkers and spruce up their conferences.
  - metalcrow 3y ago
    Citation needed. From what i know, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-left-kidney https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-left-kidney says "conference venues kept ripping them off, having a nice venue of their own would be cheaper in the long run, and after looking at many options, the “castle” was the cheapest". Zero mention of ambiance and improving thinking.
    - kawhah 3y ago
      your attitude to citations seems strange. Scott Anderson simply says, as part of a rant against anti-EA people, that the EA people said that they bought a castle for the right reasons, and that he chooses to believe them.
    - aivisol 3y ago
      As a side note, Astralcodexten blog by Scott Alexander is a fascinating read even if you are neither effective nor altruist.
    - timerol 3y ago
      TFA quotes an "EA forum", and some Googling leads to https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xof7iFB3uh8Kc53bG/why-did-cea-buy-wytham-abbey?commentId=nyzTGDNwQfj67eKqC https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xof7iFB3uh8Kc53bG/...
    - kr0bat 3y ago
      This might be the explanation astralcodexten was discussing [1]. Geoffrey Miller, a commenter, (I'm not involved in EA enough to know if that's a household name) says this I've been to about 70 conferences in my academic career, and I'm noticed that the aesthetics, antiquity, and uniqueness of the venue can have a significant effect on the seriousness with which people take ideas and conversations, and the creativity of their thinking. And, of course, it's much easier to attract great talent and busy thinkers to attractive venues. Moreover, I suspect that meeting in a building constructed in 1480 might help promote long-termism and multi-century thinking. Of course this man didn't buy the castle, so I don't think it's fair to hold a random commenter's thoughts against CEA. I'm not big on cognitive decoupling, but I also find buying a castle for a charity event venue shocking, and I don't think there were enough numbers in this post to soothe me. If renting event venues was too expensive, couldn't they have met virtually? [1] https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xof7iFB3uh8Kc53bG/why-did-cea-buy-wytham-abbey https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xof7iFB3uh8Kc53bG/...
      - metalcrow 3y ago
        Thank you for finding the original source, that's legitimately very helpful! I think this message can stand for itself much more then the parent can. You can argue with it and disagree, but at least the disagreement is more reasonable then they did it only for the ambiance. Although it doesn't seem to mention the issue with being unable to find other conference centers, so that reason may still be valid or might be a mistake on Scott's part.
      - cma 3y ago
        I suspect the real explanation has way more to do with Yudkowski's Harry Potter fanfiction and seeing the rest of the world as "Muggles" than they would be comfortable explaining.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      It's right here: "having a nice venue" Why do they need a "nice venue"? Why wouldn't any airport hotel's conference room be sufficient? They wanted something nice, more than utilitarian. They wanted luxury, and how does an "effective altruist" defend that? Because luxury makes them "more effective" of course.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        I follow a business rule of thumb that relates to this. The "chandelier rule": the bigger the chandelier in the room, the worse the deal being pitched to you is. If someone is spending lavishly on pitching to me[1], I start to really question the deal. At best, they're showing me that they don't mind wasting money on things that don't matter. If you want to impress me, wine and dine me by taking me to McDonald's. [1] I have been picked up in expensive sports cars, I have been taken out to eye-wateringly expensive restaurants, etc. This is the sort of thing that raises big red flags to me.
    - jrumbut 3y ago
      Regardless of why they bought the castle, or whether it would be more accurate to call it a manorial estate, it's a long way from a simple website that sends out mosquito nets and deworming tablets.
      - cma 3y ago
        > Regardless of why they bought the castle Two separate castles: https://twitter.com/paulmainwood/status/1600433194691502081 https://twitter.com/paulmainwood/status/1600433194691502081 https://www.chateau-hostacov.cz/en/contact https://www.chateau-hostacov.cz/en/contact They really ran with the exact opposite of Peter Singer's sacrifice your fancy boots to save a child parable. And Effective Altruist Sam Bankman-Fried, who drove a Prius for optics, lived in what has been cited as potentially the most expensive private residence in the Bahamas. He was grilled on it a bit before the collapse and explained that worrying about what he did with 1% of his money wasn't justifiable use of time in the big picture--still dubious given the Singer origins of the movement)--but a bigger problem was close to 100% of the money was fictional: illiquid self-issued token valuation, and double spending/self-loaning of customer funds. Just like other charities that spend nearly more of the money on fundraising and growth that were the main target of criticism of the movement, they did pretty much the same, while pitching it as a more effective alternative to Oxfam, etc.
        henryaj 3y ago
        The second one seems to be a link to a hotel. Where's the source for the claim that it was bought by EAs?
        cma 3y ago
        https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/pbe8x4AQDqftQoaT5/espr-should-return-the-ftx-funded-chateau https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/pbe8x4AQDqftQoaT5/...
- kr0bat 3y ago
  The problem with EA isn't a focus on objective METHODS to do good, but with the belief that there are potential recipients of "good" that are objectively better targets than others, and the belief that finding objectively better targets is even achievable.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - waveBidder 3y ago
    So it's just as good to give 1,000 to someone with a 6 digit salary as to an African peasant?
    - jprete 3y ago
      No. In utilitarian EA terms it’s 100% the opposite, you should give it to the peasant because they’ll get a lot more utility out of it.
      - waveBidder 3y ago
        that was entirely my point. it's extremely hard to beat giving to the global poor.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    EA does not believe there are objectively better recipients, only objectively more cost effective. It's not about moralizing at all. You can choose whatever objective function you want, there are some ways to achieve that objective that are more cost effective.
    - kr0bat 3y ago
      Does EA not believe in objectively better recipients? MacAskill writes that QALYs can be used to decide which charitable causes to prioritise: faced with a choice between spending $10,000 to save a 20-year-old from blindness or the same amount on antiretroviral therapy for a 30-year-old with Aids – a treatment that will improve their life and extend it by ten years – MacAskill argues it would be better to perform the sight-saving surgery, as the 20-year-old can expect to live another 50 years. He acknowledges that QALYs are an “imperfect”, “contested” measure but sees them as mostly good enough.
jjoonathan 3y ago
This is missing the forest for the trees. When I donate to http://givewell.org http://givewell.org , I don't care about the relative value they place on arms vs legs. What I care about is avoiding pseudo-charities. You know, the ones that pop up in exposé articles every now and then where most of the money goes to marketing and admin, a tiny sliver goes to the actual cause, and then a clown car pulls up and unloads 30 people who try to rationalize how this is actually a good thing? I want to avoid those. As long as givewell can somewhat reliably steer my money away from pseudo-charities, as far as I am concerned they are earning their 10%.
- timerol 3y ago
  > earning their 10% Note that GiveWell only gets 10% of your donation if you explicitly request that they do. https://www.givewell.org/donate/more-information#How_is_GiveWell_supported https://www.givewell.org/donate/more-information#How_is_Give...
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    Right. I happily tick the box because I believe in the importance of what they do.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  If all "effective altruism" ever meant was "avoid giving money to inefficient charities, and we'll help you figure out which ones are which", then it would be an unambiguously positive thing. But, from my perspective, it's like most of the people originally involved in the movement got bored with that, and went all in on all this other stuff, justified by philosophical shenanigans, resulting in not just different but often contradictory conclusions. For instance, lots of wealthy techie types who bought into EA donated heavily (and I think still do) to charities targeting things like risks to far-future humans and life extension. To me, those are also "pseudo-charities". There is no way to evaluate their effectiveness. They could be 100% effective or 0% effective, we won't know for generations or millenia... And - just like all the "pseudo-charities" researched by GiveWell - every dollar that has gone to these organizations with unknowable effectiveness could have instead gone to known-effective charities.

by kr0bat 3y ago

Waterluvian 3y ago

I think there is no shortage of objective ways to do good. If we skip over those, seeking the more subjective ways, it is probably in service to one's self, not to the goal of doing good.

cma 3y ago
They bought two effective altruist castles because they said the ambiance would help their thinkers and spruce up their conferences.
- metalcrow 3y ago
  Citation needed. From what i know, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-left-kidney https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-left-kidney says "conference venues kept ripping them off, having a nice venue of their own would be cheaper in the long run, and after looking at many options, the “castle” was the cheapest". Zero mention of ambiance and improving thinking.
  - kawhah 3y ago
    your attitude to citations seems strange. Scott Anderson simply says, as part of a rant against anti-EA people, that the EA people said that they bought a castle for the right reasons, and that he chooses to believe them.
  - aivisol 3y ago
    As a side note, Astralcodexten blog by Scott Alexander is a fascinating read even if you are neither effective nor altruist.
  - timerol 3y ago
    TFA quotes an "EA forum", and some Googling leads to https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xof7iFB3uh8Kc53bG/why-did-cea-buy-wytham-abbey?commentId=nyzTGDNwQfj67eKqC https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xof7iFB3uh8Kc53bG/...
  - kr0bat 3y ago
    This might be the explanation astralcodexten was discussing [1]. Geoffrey Miller, a commenter, (I'm not involved in EA enough to know if that's a household name) says this I've been to about 70 conferences in my academic career, and I'm noticed that the aesthetics, antiquity, and uniqueness of the venue can have a significant effect on the seriousness with which people take ideas and conversations, and the creativity of their thinking. And, of course, it's much easier to attract great talent and busy thinkers to attractive venues. Moreover, I suspect that meeting in a building constructed in 1480 might help promote long-termism and multi-century thinking. Of course this man didn't buy the castle, so I don't think it's fair to hold a random commenter's thoughts against CEA. I'm not big on cognitive decoupling, but I also find buying a castle for a charity event venue shocking, and I don't think there were enough numbers in this post to soothe me. If renting event venues was too expensive, couldn't they have met virtually? [1] https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xof7iFB3uh8Kc53bG/why-did-cea-buy-wytham-abbey https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xof7iFB3uh8Kc53bG/...
    - metalcrow 3y ago
      Thank you for finding the original source, that's legitimately very helpful! I think this message can stand for itself much more then the parent can. You can argue with it and disagree, but at least the disagreement is more reasonable then they did it only for the ambiance. Although it doesn't seem to mention the issue with being unable to find other conference centers, so that reason may still be valid or might be a mistake on Scott's part.
    - cma 3y ago
      I suspect the real explanation has way more to do with Yudkowski's Harry Potter fanfiction and seeing the rest of the world as "Muggles" than they would be comfortable explaining.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    It's right here: "having a nice venue" Why do they need a "nice venue"? Why wouldn't any airport hotel's conference room be sufficient? They wanted something nice, more than utilitarian. They wanted luxury, and how does an "effective altruist" defend that? Because luxury makes them "more effective" of course.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      I follow a business rule of thumb that relates to this. The "chandelier rule": the bigger the chandelier in the room, the worse the deal being pitched to you is. If someone is spending lavishly on pitching to me[1], I start to really question the deal. At best, they're showing me that they don't mind wasting money on things that don't matter. If you want to impress me, wine and dine me by taking me to McDonald's. [1] I have been picked up in expensive sports cars, I have been taken out to eye-wateringly expensive restaurants, etc. This is the sort of thing that raises big red flags to me.
  - jrumbut 3y ago
    Regardless of why they bought the castle, or whether it would be more accurate to call it a manorial estate, it's a long way from a simple website that sends out mosquito nets and deworming tablets.
    - cma 3y ago
      > Regardless of why they bought the castle Two separate castles: https://twitter.com/paulmainwood/status/1600433194691502081 https://twitter.com/paulmainwood/status/1600433194691502081 https://www.chateau-hostacov.cz/en/contact https://www.chateau-hostacov.cz/en/contact They really ran with the exact opposite of Peter Singer's sacrifice your fancy boots to save a child parable. And Effective Altruist Sam Bankman-Fried, who drove a Prius for optics, lived in what has been cited as potentially the most expensive private residence in the Bahamas. He was grilled on it a bit before the collapse and explained that worrying about what he did with 1% of his money wasn't justifiable use of time in the big picture--still dubious given the Singer origins of the movement)--but a bigger problem was close to 100% of the money was fictional: illiquid self-issued token valuation, and double spending/self-loaning of customer funds. Just like other charities that spend nearly more of the money on fundraising and growth that were the main target of criticism of the movement, they did pretty much the same, while pitching it as a more effective alternative to Oxfam, etc.
      - henryaj 3y ago
        The second one seems to be a link to a hotel. Where's the source for the claim that it was bought by EAs?
        cma 3y ago
        https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/pbe8x4AQDqftQoaT5/espr-should-return-the-ftx-funded-chateau https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/pbe8x4AQDqftQoaT5/...
kr0bat 3y ago
The problem with EA isn't a focus on objective METHODS to do good, but with the belief that there are potential recipients of "good" that are objectively better targets than others, and the belief that finding objectively better targets is even achievable.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- waveBidder 3y ago
  So it's just as good to give 1,000 to someone with a 6 digit salary as to an African peasant?
  - jprete 3y ago
    No. In utilitarian EA terms it’s 100% the opposite, you should give it to the peasant because they’ll get a lot more utility out of it.
    - waveBidder 3y ago
      that was entirely my point. it's extremely hard to beat giving to the global poor.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  EA does not believe there are objectively better recipients, only objectively more cost effective. It's not about moralizing at all. You can choose whatever objective function you want, there are some ways to achieve that objective that are more cost effective.
  - kr0bat 3y ago
    Does EA not believe in objectively better recipients? MacAskill writes that QALYs can be used to decide which charitable causes to prioritise: faced with a choice between spending $10,000 to save a 20-year-old from blindness or the same amount on antiretroviral therapy for a 30-year-old with Aids – a treatment that will improve their life and extend it by ten years – MacAskill argues it would be better to perform the sight-saving surgery, as the 20-year-old can expect to live another 50 years. He acknowledges that QALYs are an “imperfect”, “contested” measure but sees them as mostly good enough.

jjoonathan 3y ago

This is missing the forest for the trees. When I donate to http://givewell.org http://givewell.org , I don't care about the relative value they place on arms vs legs. What I care about is avoiding pseudo-charities. You know, the ones that pop up in exposé articles every now and then where most of the money goes to marketing and admin, a tiny sliver goes to the actual cause, and then a clown car pulls up and unloads 30 people who try to rationalize how this is actually a good thing? I want to avoid those. As long as givewell can somewhat reliably steer my money away from pseudo-charities, as far as I am concerned they are earning their 10%.

timerol 3y ago
> earning their 10% Note that GiveWell only gets 10% of your donation if you explicitly request that they do. https://www.givewell.org/donate/more-information#How_is_GiveWell_supported https://www.givewell.org/donate/more-information#How_is_Give...
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Right. I happily tick the box because I believe in the importance of what they do.
sanderjd 3y ago
If all "effective altruism" ever meant was "avoid giving money to inefficient charities, and we'll help you figure out which ones are which", then it would be an unambiguously positive thing. But, from my perspective, it's like most of the people originally involved in the movement got bored with that, and went all in on all this other stuff, justified by philosophical shenanigans, resulting in not just different but often contradictory conclusions. For instance, lots of wealthy techie types who bought into EA donated heavily (and I think still do) to charities targeting things like risks to far-future humans and life extension. To me, those are also "pseudo-charities". There is no way to evaluate their effectiveness. They could be 100% effective or 0% effective, we won't know for generations or millenia... And - just like all the "pseudo-charities" researched by GiveWell - every dollar that has gone to these organizations with unknowable effectiveness could have instead gone to known-effective charities.