5 ms·

In continued defense of effective altruism

26 points by pantalaimon 3y ago

barry-cotter 3y ago
> Still not impressed? Recently, in the US alone, effective altruists have: > ended all gun violence, including mass shootings and police shootings cured AIDS and melanoma prevented a 9-11 scale terrorist attack Okay. Fine. EA hasn’t, technically, done any of these things. > But it has saved the same number of lives that doing all those things would have. > About 20,000 Americans die yearly of gun violence, 8,000 of melanoma, 13,000 from AIDS, and 3,000 people in 9/11. So doing all of these things would save 44,000 lives per year. That matches the ~50,000 lives that effective altruist charities save yearly18. > People aren’t acting like EA has ended gun violence and cured AIDS and so on. all those things. Probably this is because those are exciting popular causes in the news, and saving people in developing countries isn’t. Most people care so little about saving lives in developing countries that effective altruists can save 200,000 of them and people will just not notice. “Oh, all your movement ever does is cause corporate boardroom drama, and maybe other things I’m forgetting right now.”
catchnear4321 3y ago
effective altruists are neither. all the movement does is attempt to distort reality to the childlike views of the wealthy. yes, ea practitioners think they are better than everyone else. that’s why all the haters are wrong.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  I'm curious, have you ever gone to any EA meetups or interacted with these people in person, or is all of this just based on a certain pattern of blinking pixels on one of your devices?
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    come now, ray tubes are more fun. pixels? pshaw. and you wonder why people distrust the aims of ea types. yes, in person interaction, but beyond that is none of your business. of course this will be unsatisfactory, but satisfaction isn’t the goal, is it? since we are trading info, when did you become one?
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38459320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38459320
      - catchnear4321 3y ago
        [flagged]
Jonnston 3y ago
As an idea, and an ideal, it's hard to seriously criticize EA. Sone pretty shady people have done really unethical things while claiming it as a rationale, but I don't understand how that's supposed to convince me that "most good for the least cost" should be anything other than a North star for moral action.
- Munksgaard 3y ago
  Utilitarianism is not the only moral framework.
syndicatedjelly 3y ago
Effective altruism is the result of not teaching STEM majors enough classics and philosophy. These tech nerds have "invented" utilitarianism, a philosophy that goes back thousands of years and has known downsides when taken to the extreme (i.e. ignoring personal liberties and the means of doing things). The ends don't always justify the means.
- chadbr 3y ago
  socialism fueled by capitalism… the irony is so good. In the 60’s/70’s it would have been called a cult.
- henryaj 3y ago
  If they've invented utilitarianism, why do they use that exact term so often? Seems like EAs are actually pretty familiar with the history of utilitarian thought. Much EA discourse focuses on moral philosophy and meta-ethics. Will MacAskill, well-known EA, is a professor of moral philosophy. Deontology has its problems too.
  - yboris 3y ago
    It's worth to look at the track record of utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham, often regarded as the founder of classical utilitarianism, almost 300 years ago, was arguing in favor of women's rights, decriminalization of homosexuality, abolition of slavery, animal welfare, prison reform. https://www.utilitarianism.net/utilitarian-thinker/jeremy-bentham/ https://www.utilitarianism.net/utilitarian-thinker/jeremy-be...
    - henryaj 3y ago
      Agreed - Bentham is a hero.
- woooooo 3y ago
  There's a long history of people saying this about Scott Alexander in particular. Whenever I speak to them, they've clearly never actually read the 10 page essay they're complaining about. Makes me wonder if they actually read any philosophy either.
UncleMeat 3y ago
I think that this is a bait and switch here. I'm not aware of any significant and serious criticism of the "give lots of money to malaria net organizations" approach to Effective Altruism. This also doesn't seem to be especially present in the article. I'm sure that you can find individual examples on twitter or whatever, but from my seat that seems to be a clear minority of the criticism. It is the version of Effective Altruism that has gone beyond that to "we need to focus on AI safety" and "we need to fly to mars" that people are calling bananas. Heck, the article even mentions that it is difficult to separate Effective Altruism from AI Doomerism and lists a bunch of vague accomplishments about AI Alignment as accomplishments alongside "Saved 200,000 lives." The argument that people should efficiently allocate their charitable giving is sound. Where things go off the rails is when people's model of efficiency involves wild future hypotheticals about robot uprisings.
- Arnt 3y ago
  AIUI the EA argument would be "focusing on EA safety is among the most effective usee of our resources" and "flying to Mars is among the most effective uses of our resources". I can see how the former might be viewed as a cost-effective way to improve the world, even if I personally haven't even tried to consider the matter. The latter, not so much. Can you point to an effective altruist who argues that that's likely effective? I don't mean someone who says effective altrusts think so (and are stupid to think so), I mean someone who is an effective altruist and says so.
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    Right that's the argument. I just think that people who say that are using a wildly incorrect function for altruistic efficiency.
    - yorwba 3y ago
      And who are those people who say that?
- chaseadam17 3y ago
williamcotton 3y ago
I'll bite. I go to LessWrong, ACX, and sometimes EA meetups. Why? Mainly because it's like the HackerNews comment section but in person. I have never donated to EA. I choose instead to donate to https://www.gatesphilanthropypartners.org https://www.gatesphilanthropypartners.org, which has very similar ideals and approaches and is arguably more effective, a debate which I have openly had with many EA proponents, and to the detriment of none! At least in Austin, AI doomers only make up a smaller chunk than the rest of the people who show up. I'd say the overriding mentality is skepticism and curiosity. The range in political opinion is very large. There's no dominating ideology and every statement will result in someone who politely disagrees! And yes, LW, ACX, and EA are all very intermingled, so make of that what you will!
photochemsyn 3y ago
The problem with billionaire philanthropy (which is what the term 'effective altruism' was intended to replace as part of a rebranding effort) is that it tends to be self-serving and opaque. E.g. we don't want secretive private 'do-gooder' foundations running global public health programs because they're always incentivized to deliver their funds to the private investment interests of the billionaires in charge, rather than say bidding out contracts in a transparent manner. Similar arguments apply to the educational system, to clean air and water efforts, etc. The better solution is to (1) increase tax rates on the wealthiest sectors of the economy by restoring 1960s-era tax brackets for income, corporate, and capital gains and (2) change how those funds are spent at the federal and state level, i.e. move away from funding foreign wars and towards fixing all the basic domestic problems. The reason you want government agencies, not private foundations, in charge of this is that they're subject to public scrutiny, FOIA requests by journalists, etc. In other words, 'effective altruism' is just another con artist program intended to give legitimacy and cover to the USA's ridiculously greedy, out-of-control and amoral investment capitalism culture.
- adamgordonbell 3y ago
  citation needed I thought EA was people buying malaria nets while quoting Scott Alexander and reading the sequences.
- yboris 3y ago
  Your first sentence betrays lack of familiarity with EA. It is offensive to me that you state it as fact. EA started as a continuation of Peter Singer's argument in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (1972), as a progression after the founding of Giving What We Can (thousands of people giving at least 10% of their pre-tax income to cost-effective charities). Have you ever read about it here? https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-e...
- Joeboy 3y ago
  As per the other replies, you've seriously misunderstood some fundamentals about EA. But aside from that: > The better solution is to (1) increase tax rates on the wealthiest sectors of the economy by restoring 1960s-era tax brackets for income, corporate, and capital gains and (2) change how those funds are spent at the federal and state level, i.e. move away from funding foreign wars and towards fixing all the basic domestic problems. Why are these mutually exclusive? Why can't I favour progressive taxation and better foreign / domestic policies, while also making donations to stop people dying of preventable diseases? Obviously EA people aren't all the same, but I'd say that was a fairly typical position among EAs, and I see nothing wrong with it. If there is some slight way in which donating to malaria prevention as at odds with taxing the rich, is it really worth the large death toll associated with withdrawing funding from the former?
paulolc 3y ago
Effective Altruism is a bad idea. Applying money in a way that does the most good possible is focusing/obsessing too much on one angle. A Local Maximum will be reached without mechanisms to get out of it.
- Arnt 3y ago
  You state without argument that effective altrusts optimise for one angle and disregard all other angles. Can you show some examples of this?
  - paulolc 3y ago
    Sure. The one angle I am talking about is focusing on maximizing the application of money on the _things that do the most good possible_. There may be cases where financing something that will certainly not do the most good possible, on the contrary, it may cause havoc, suffering, death and destruction, like war, is the best course of action. Sacrifice sometimes is needed. Effective Altruism already proved to be a failed idea. It inspired smart and good people to justify any means for and end, just because they thought the end was ultimately good and honest (I believe that SBF was aware of the illegality of what he was doing but it was ok because it was for a good cause). EA is a virtue signalling and a god complex pit. Of course, no one is against maximizing resources to where they are needed the most. That it should be an evidence based approach and focused on systemic change and long term solutions, rather than just alleviating symptoms. Yes, but this is just common sense. Now, naming it Altruism and adding Effective on top is just creating a banner for another Crusade like endeavor. Throw your money at us and you will be saved and your sins forgiven.
casebash 3y ago
Why was this post flagged?
- SilasX 3y ago
  And why can't users vouch for it like with comments?

26 points by pantalaimon 3y ago

> Still not impressed? Recently, in the US alone, effective altruists have: > ended all gun violence, including mass shootings and police shootings cured AIDS and melanoma prevented a 9-11 scale terrorist attack Okay. Fine. EA hasn’t, technically, done any of these things. > But it has saved the same number of lives that doing all those things would have. > About 20,000 Americans die yearly of gun violence, 8,000 of melanoma, 13,000 from AIDS, and 3,000 people in 9/11. So doing all of these things would save 44,000 lives per year. That matches the ~50,000 lives that effective altruist charities save yearly18. > People aren’t acting like EA has ended gun violence and cured AIDS and so on. all those things. Probably this is because those are exciting popular causes in the news, and saving people in developing countries isn’t. Most people care so little about saving lives in developing countries that effective altruists can save 200,000 of them and people will just not notice. “Oh, all your movement ever does is cause corporate boardroom drama, and maybe other things I’m forgetting right now.”

catchnear4321 3y ago

effective altruists are neither. all the movement does is attempt to distort reality to the childlike views of the wealthy. yes, ea practitioners think they are better than everyone else. that’s why all the haters are wrong.

williamcotton 3y ago
I'm curious, have you ever gone to any EA meetups or interacted with these people in person, or is all of this just based on a certain pattern of blinking pixels on one of your devices?
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  come now, ray tubes are more fun. pixels? pshaw. and you wonder why people distrust the aims of ea types. yes, in person interaction, but beyond that is none of your business. of course this will be unsatisfactory, but satisfaction isn’t the goal, is it? since we are trading info, when did you become one?
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38459320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38459320
    - catchnear4321 3y ago
      [flagged]

Jonnston 3y ago

As an idea, and an ideal, it's hard to seriously criticize EA. Sone pretty shady people have done really unethical things while claiming it as a rationale, but I don't understand how that's supposed to convince me that "most good for the least cost" should be anything other than a North star for moral action.

Munksgaard 3y ago
Utilitarianism is not the only moral framework.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago

Effective altruism is the result of not teaching STEM majors enough classics and philosophy. These tech nerds have "invented" utilitarianism, a philosophy that goes back thousands of years and has known downsides when taken to the extreme (i.e. ignoring personal liberties and the means of doing things). The ends don't always justify the means.

chadbr 3y ago
socialism fueled by capitalism… the irony is so good. In the 60’s/70’s it would have been called a cult.
henryaj 3y ago
If they've invented utilitarianism, why do they use that exact term so often? Seems like EAs are actually pretty familiar with the history of utilitarian thought. Much EA discourse focuses on moral philosophy and meta-ethics. Will MacAskill, well-known EA, is a professor of moral philosophy. Deontology has its problems too.
- yboris 3y ago
  It's worth to look at the track record of utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham, often regarded as the founder of classical utilitarianism, almost 300 years ago, was arguing in favor of women's rights, decriminalization of homosexuality, abolition of slavery, animal welfare, prison reform. https://www.utilitarianism.net/utilitarian-thinker/jeremy-bentham/ https://www.utilitarianism.net/utilitarian-thinker/jeremy-be...
  - henryaj 3y ago
    Agreed - Bentham is a hero.
woooooo 3y ago
There's a long history of people saying this about Scott Alexander in particular. Whenever I speak to them, they've clearly never actually read the 10 page essay they're complaining about. Makes me wonder if they actually read any philosophy either.

UncleMeat 3y ago

I think that this is a bait and switch here. I'm not aware of any significant and serious criticism of the "give lots of money to malaria net organizations" approach to Effective Altruism. This also doesn't seem to be especially present in the article. I'm sure that you can find individual examples on twitter or whatever, but from my seat that seems to be a clear minority of the criticism. It is the version of Effective Altruism that has gone beyond that to "we need to focus on AI safety" and "we need to fly to mars" that people are calling bananas. Heck, the article even mentions that it is difficult to separate Effective Altruism from AI Doomerism and lists a bunch of vague accomplishments about AI Alignment as accomplishments alongside "Saved 200,000 lives." The argument that people should efficiently allocate their charitable giving is sound. Where things go off the rails is when people's model of efficiency involves wild future hypotheticals about robot uprisings.

Arnt 3y ago
AIUI the EA argument would be "focusing on EA safety is among the most effective usee of our resources" and "flying to Mars is among the most effective uses of our resources". I can see how the former might be viewed as a cost-effective way to improve the world, even if I personally haven't even tried to consider the matter. The latter, not so much. Can you point to an effective altruist who argues that that's likely effective? I don't mean someone who says effective altrusts think so (and are stupid to think so), I mean someone who is an effective altruist and says so.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  Right that's the argument. I just think that people who say that are using a wildly incorrect function for altruistic efficiency.
  - yorwba 3y ago
    And who are those people who say that?
chaseadam17 3y ago

williamcotton 3y ago

I'll bite. I go to LessWrong, ACX, and sometimes EA meetups. Why? Mainly because it's like the HackerNews comment section but in person. I have never donated to EA. I choose instead to donate to https://www.gatesphilanthropypartners.org https://www.gatesphilanthropypartners.org, which has very similar ideals and approaches and is arguably more effective, a debate which I have openly had with many EA proponents, and to the detriment of none! At least in Austin, AI doomers only make up a smaller chunk than the rest of the people who show up. I'd say the overriding mentality is skepticism and curiosity. The range in political opinion is very large. There's no dominating ideology and every statement will result in someone who politely disagrees! And yes, LW, ACX, and EA are all very intermingled, so make of that what you will!

photochemsyn 3y ago

The problem with billionaire philanthropy (which is what the term 'effective altruism' was intended to replace as part of a rebranding effort) is that it tends to be self-serving and opaque. E.g. we don't want secretive private 'do-gooder' foundations running global public health programs because they're always incentivized to deliver their funds to the private investment interests of the billionaires in charge, rather than say bidding out contracts in a transparent manner. Similar arguments apply to the educational system, to clean air and water efforts, etc. The better solution is to (1) increase tax rates on the wealthiest sectors of the economy by restoring 1960s-era tax brackets for income, corporate, and capital gains and (2) change how those funds are spent at the federal and state level, i.e. move away from funding foreign wars and towards fixing all the basic domestic problems. The reason you want government agencies, not private foundations, in charge of this is that they're subject to public scrutiny, FOIA requests by journalists, etc. In other words, 'effective altruism' is just another con artist program intended to give legitimacy and cover to the USA's ridiculously greedy, out-of-control and amoral investment capitalism culture.

adamgordonbell 3y ago
citation needed I thought EA was people buying malaria nets while quoting Scott Alexander and reading the sequences.
yboris 3y ago
Your first sentence betrays lack of familiarity with EA. It is offensive to me that you state it as fact. EA started as a continuation of Peter Singer's argument in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (1972), as a progression after the founding of Giving What We Can (thousands of people giving at least 10% of their pre-tax income to cost-effective charities). Have you ever read about it here? https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-e...
Joeboy 3y ago
As per the other replies, you've seriously misunderstood some fundamentals about EA. But aside from that: > The better solution is to (1) increase tax rates on the wealthiest sectors of the economy by restoring 1960s-era tax brackets for income, corporate, and capital gains and (2) change how those funds are spent at the federal and state level, i.e. move away from funding foreign wars and towards fixing all the basic domestic problems. Why are these mutually exclusive? Why can't I favour progressive taxation and better foreign / domestic policies, while also making donations to stop people dying of preventable diseases? Obviously EA people aren't all the same, but I'd say that was a fairly typical position among EAs, and I see nothing wrong with it. If there is some slight way in which donating to malaria prevention as at odds with taxing the rich, is it really worth the large death toll associated with withdrawing funding from the former?

paulolc 3y ago

Effective Altruism is a bad idea. Applying money in a way that does the most good possible is focusing/obsessing too much on one angle. A Local Maximum will be reached without mechanisms to get out of it.

Arnt 3y ago
You state without argument that effective altrusts optimise for one angle and disregard all other angles. Can you show some examples of this?
- paulolc 3y ago
  Sure. The one angle I am talking about is focusing on maximizing the application of money on the _things that do the most good possible_. There may be cases where financing something that will certainly not do the most good possible, on the contrary, it may cause havoc, suffering, death and destruction, like war, is the best course of action. Sacrifice sometimes is needed. Effective Altruism already proved to be a failed idea. It inspired smart and good people to justify any means for and end, just because they thought the end was ultimately good and honest (I believe that SBF was aware of the illegality of what he was doing but it was ok because it was for a good cause). EA is a virtue signalling and a god complex pit. Of course, no one is against maximizing resources to where they are needed the most. That it should be an evidence based approach and focused on systemic change and long term solutions, rather than just alleviating symptoms. Yes, but this is just common sense. Now, naming it Altruism and adding Effective on top is just creating a banner for another Crusade like endeavor. Throw your money at us and you will be saved and your sins forgiven.

casebash 3y ago

Why was this post flagged?

SilasX 3y ago
And why can't users vouch for it like with comments?