Is EA as a bait and switch a compelling argument for it being bad?
I don’t really think so
There are a wide variety of baits and switches, from what I’d call misleading to some pretty normal activities—is it a bait and switch when churches don’t discuss their most controversial beliefs at a “bring your friends” service? What about wearing nice clothes to a first date? [1]
EA is a big movement composed of different groups[2]. Many describe it differently.
EA is way more transparent than any comparable movement. If it is a bait and switch then it does so much more to make clear where the money goes eg (https://openbook.fyi/).
On the other hand:
I do sometimes see people describing EA too favourably or pushing an inaccurate line.
I think that transparency comes with a feature of allowing anyone to come and say “what’s going on there” and that can be very beneficial at avoiding error but also bad criticism can be too cheap.
Overall I don’t find this line that compelling. And that parts that are seem largely in the past when EA was smaller (when perhaps it mattered less). Now that EA is big, it’s pretty clear that it cares about many different things.
I think that there might be something meaningfully different between wearing nice clothes to a first date (or a job interview), as opposed to intentionally not mentioning more controversial/divisive topics to newcomers. I think there is a difference between putting your best foot forward (dressing nice, grooming, explaining introductory EA principles articulately with a ‘pitch’ you have practices) and intentionally avoiding/occluding information.
For a date, I wouldn’t feel deceived/tricked if someone dressed nice. But I would feel deceived if the person intentionally withheld or hid information that they knew I would care about. (it is almost a joke that some people lie about age, weight, height, employment, and similar traits in dating).
I have to admit that I was a bit turned off (what word is appropriate for a very weak form of disgusted?) when I learned that there has long been an intentional effort in EA to funnel people from global development to long-termism within EA.
If anything, EA now has a strong public (admittedly critical) reputation for longtermist beliefs. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people have joined in order to pursue AI alignment and got confused when they found out more than half of the donations go to GHD & animal welfare.
Is EA as a bait and switch a compelling argument for it being bad?
I don’t really think so
There are a wide variety of baits and switches, from what I’d call misleading to some pretty normal activities—is it a bait and switch when churches don’t discuss their most controversial beliefs at a “bring your friends” service? What about wearing nice clothes to a first date? [1]
EA is a big movement composed of different groups[2]. Many describe it differently.
EA has done so much global health stuff I am not sure it can be described as a bait and switch. eg https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ip7nXs7l-8sahT6ehvk2pBrlQ6Umy5IMPYStO3taaoc/edit#gid=9418963
EA is way more transparent than any comparable movement. If it is a bait and switch then it does so much more to make clear where the money goes eg (https://openbook.fyi/).
On the other hand:
I do sometimes see people describing EA too favourably or pushing an inaccurate line.
I think that transparency comes with a feature of allowing anyone to come and say “what’s going on there” and that can be very beneficial at avoiding error but also bad criticism can be too cheap.
Overall I don’t find this line that compelling. And that parts that are seem largely in the past when EA was smaller (when perhaps it mattered less). Now that EA is big, it’s pretty clear that it cares about many different things.
Seems fine.
@Richard Y Chappell created the analogy.
@Sean_o_h argues that here.
I think that there might be something meaningfully different between wearing nice clothes to a first date (or a job interview), as opposed to intentionally not mentioning more controversial/divisive topics to newcomers. I think there is a difference between putting your best foot forward (dressing nice, grooming, explaining introductory EA principles articulately with a ‘pitch’ you have practices) and intentionally avoiding/occluding information.
For a date, I wouldn’t feel deceived/tricked if someone dressed nice. But I would feel deceived if the person intentionally withheld or hid information that they knew I would care about. (it is almost a joke that some people lie about age, weight, height, employment, and similar traits in dating).
I have to admit that I was a bit turned off (what word is appropriate for a very weak form of disgusted?) when I learned that there has long been an intentional effort in EA to funnel people from global development to long-termism within EA.
If anything, EA now has a strong public (admittedly critical) reputation for longtermist beliefs. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people have joined in order to pursue AI alignment and got confused when they found out more than half of the donations go to GHD & animal welfare.
re: fn 1, maybe my tweet?
Yes, I thought it was you but I couldn’t find it. Good analogy.