I just wanted to point out some more errors with this podcast (though Matthewâs comment does it well, and perhaps better), just to underscore how a poor a job I think both did with the EA section. Like even if you agree with this worldview and perspective to criticise EA from, you have to be better than this. To Joseph, I feel like if you can (as a left-wing EA?) be a part of bridge-building between the movements that would be good. But this seems to be the latest in a long string of left-leaning criticisms that goes so far beyond the facts, and never thinking about whether theyâve got their case right:
3 minutes in Amy states what seems to be her core issue with EA: âthis all comes down to how we define Humanity. Is Humanity sustenance, just merely surviving? Or is Humanity really about thriving and our full human capabilities to flourish and to create new things in in common with one another? So my feeling is philanthropy went wrong when it started to become a utilitarian practice and not an enabler of human flourishing.â
This doesnât describe EA remotely accurately, at least to me. EAs seem to want a world where humans and other sentient beings flourish as far as Iâm aware. Most charitably, maybe sheâs mixing up EA methods with EA ends? Less charitably, sheâs just making up a strawman to attack.
Furthermore, Amy doesnât explain when she thinks philanthropy became a âutilitarian practiceâ, or what that even means. She doesnât seem to back this up afaik? EA is still a small drop in the overall tide of worldwide philanthropy to me knowledge. But then the utiliarian practice of philanthropy canât be EAâs fault.
Following on from the above, at around 7 mins. Amy says that giving money is a better way of supporting human flourishing than other means. But GiveDirectly is charity that many EAs donate to and support![1] Does she not know this? Is there some reason this doesnât count? Why do all the other charities in the world that arenât GiveDirectly also get similar treatment?[2]
At multiple times in the opening segments (up to 6â7 mins) Adam says that EA has âcollapsedâ, âbeen largely discreditedâ and âbeen entirely discreditedâ. No evidence for this is true, how much of EA this refers to, and so on. This just seems to be reporting his vibe. Most of this podcast just seems to be shared confirmation of a vibe.
At around 13 mins, Amy brings up Angus Deatonâs view on EA. I think a great case study of this the second-half of his interview on Rationally Speaking with Julia Galef, which goes largely off the rails and not in Deatonâs favour imo. Adam and Amy donât actually back up Angusâ point here, they seem to say imply that even if GiveWellâs estimates of how much more effective their Top Charities are is true, it still wouldnât be morally right to donate to them over local ones.
As Matthew mentions, at around 15 mins Adam seems to get confused with GiveWell and perhaps OpenPhil in terms of climate change vs AI risk mitigation? Adamâs turn away from GiveWell is a key thread that runs throughout the podcast, and this just seems to be a complete confabulation.
Around 17 mins Amy says: âthis is sort of the end state of thinking of Humanity only in terms of volume. Like how the number of beings that we count as human beings who are, who could maximally be alive. And not about quality of life, not about quality of our world,â which doesnât seem true of EA,[3] it only seems true of Parfitâs repgunant conclusion, but even that makes an assumption about the quality of life of people in that scenario.
Around 19 mins Adam says âYou donât actually do that shit⌠itâs a thought experimentâ. I donât know how heâd feel about Republicans in Congress or even moderate Democrats voting down any progressive taxation bill by saying âRawlâs viel of ignorance is just a thought experimentâ. Thought experiments are used to elucidate ideas and arguments. I feel like Amy and Adam actually take issue with the ideas, not the whole concept of thought experiments.
Around 28:30 Amy implies EA is âwe can do the most good in the world without actually really caring about other people and our obligations to them.â I guess weâd probably mean different things here, but the EAs Iâve met care a lot, an awful lot about other people and take their obligations seriously to others, even those different from their own demographics or on the other side of the world.
The second half is more about Amy laying out a positive account of her own ideas for philanthropy, which I didnât listen to apart from skimming through. Quickly looking at the transcript it seems to be a classic critique of philanthropy from a left-wing perspective, preferring to have action take place through mutual aid and worker solidarity.
Itâs interesting around 52 mins that Amy is concerned that her âdemocratize philanthropyâ views when combined with her and Adamâs dissatisfaction with American democracy could lead her to some libertarian conclusions, which she views as a sign somethingâs gone wrong, rather than a conclusion to accept or even just to explore more.
Around 1hr 3mins Adam actually asks where to donate to, and says (as he used to donate to EA orgs/âcauses) âI donât mind that my money went to bed nets, but now Iâm like, I could have done a little better.â In the various suggestions that follow, Iâm not sure I see something that is a better use of funds, explicitly funds for donation, than AMF.
tl;drâThis was a highly frustrating listen, mostly because there are some interesting lines of critique I feel this podcast could have gone down in an alternate universe where Adam and Amy cared more to find out more about what EA actually is and what EA says. I donât think either of them are intentionally lying per se, but they definitely donât seem interested in questioning whether theyâve got the basic facts of the case right, and it just seems to lead them to make obviously wrong claims and just have a bad-quality discussion overall.
I think in the second half Amy tries to ground this is local ties of community, solidarity, and mutual aid. I just find these very unconvincing compared to the alternatives, to be honest.
Yes, I think there is a growing group of âleft-wing/âprogressiveâ people that attack EA with mostly lazy/âold arguments. To me, I feel they have a sizable audience that genuinely care about the state of the world, and maybe we could have something like an âAnti- Anti-EA F.A.Q.â, seeing as how Anti-âTESCREALâists are surging
I just wanted to point out some more errors with this podcast (though Matthewâs comment does it well, and perhaps better), just to underscore how a poor a job I think both did with the EA section. Like even if you agree with this worldview and perspective to criticise EA from, you have to be better than this. To Joseph, I feel like if you can (as a left-wing EA?) be a part of bridge-building between the movements that would be good. But this seems to be the latest in a long string of left-leaning criticisms that goes so far beyond the facts, and never thinking about whether theyâve got their case right:
3 minutes in Amy states what seems to be her core issue with EA: âthis all comes down to how we define Humanity. Is Humanity sustenance, just merely surviving? Or is Humanity really about thriving and our full human capabilities to flourish and to create new things in in common with one another? So my feeling is philanthropy went wrong when it started to become a utilitarian practice and not an enabler of human flourishing.â
This doesnât describe EA remotely accurately, at least to me. EAs seem to want a world where humans and other sentient beings flourish as far as Iâm aware. Most charitably, maybe sheâs mixing up EA methods with EA ends? Less charitably, sheâs just making up a strawman to attack.
Furthermore, Amy doesnât explain when she thinks philanthropy became a âutilitarian practiceâ, or what that even means. She doesnât seem to back this up afaik? EA is still a small drop in the overall tide of worldwide philanthropy to me knowledge. But then the utiliarian practice of philanthropy canât be EAâs fault.
Following on from the above, at around 7 mins. Amy says that giving money is a better way of supporting human flourishing than other means. But GiveDirectly is charity that many EAs donate to and support![1] Does she not know this? Is there some reason this doesnât count? Why do all the other charities in the world that arenât GiveDirectly also get similar treatment?[2]
At multiple times in the opening segments (up to 6â7 mins) Adam says that EA has âcollapsedâ, âbeen largely discreditedâ and âbeen entirely discreditedâ. No evidence for this is true, how much of EA this refers to, and so on. This just seems to be reporting his vibe. Most of this podcast just seems to be shared confirmation of a vibe.
At around 13 mins, Amy brings up Angus Deatonâs view on EA. I think a great case study of this the second-half of his interview on Rationally Speaking with Julia Galef, which goes largely off the rails and not in Deatonâs favour imo. Adam and Amy donât actually back up Angusâ point here, they seem to say imply that even if GiveWellâs estimates of how much more effective their Top Charities are is true, it still wouldnât be morally right to donate to them over local ones.
As Matthew mentions, at around 15 mins Adam seems to get confused with GiveWell and perhaps OpenPhil in terms of climate change vs AI risk mitigation? Adamâs turn away from GiveWell is a key thread that runs throughout the podcast, and this just seems to be a complete confabulation.
Around 17 mins Amy says: âthis is sort of the end state of thinking of Humanity only in terms of volume. Like how the number of beings that we count as human beings who are, who could maximally be alive. And not about quality of life, not about quality of our world,â which doesnât seem true of EA,[3] it only seems true of Parfitâs repgunant conclusion, but even that makes an assumption about the quality of life of people in that scenario.
Around 19 mins Adam says âYou donât actually do that shit⌠itâs a thought experimentâ. I donât know how heâd feel about Republicans in Congress or even moderate Democrats voting down any progressive taxation bill by saying âRawlâs viel of ignorance is just a thought experimentâ. Thought experiments are used to elucidate ideas and arguments. I feel like Amy and Adam actually take issue with the ideas, not the whole concept of thought experiments.
Around 28:30 Amy implies EA is âwe can do the most good in the world without actually really caring about other people and our obligations to them.â I guess weâd probably mean different things here, but the EAs Iâve met care a lot, an awful lot about other people and take their obligations seriously to others, even those different from their own demographics or on the other side of the world.
The second half is more about Amy laying out a positive account of her own ideas for philanthropy, which I didnât listen to apart from skimming through. Quickly looking at the transcript it seems to be a classic critique of philanthropy from a left-wing perspective, preferring to have action take place through mutual aid and worker solidarity.
Itâs interesting around 52 mins that Amy is concerned that her âdemocratize philanthropyâ views when combined with her and Adamâs dissatisfaction with American democracy could lead her to some libertarian conclusions, which she views as a sign somethingâs gone wrong, rather than a conclusion to accept or even just to explore more.
Around 1hr 3mins Adam actually asks where to donate to, and says (as he used to donate to EA orgs/âcauses) âI donât mind that my money went to bed nets, but now Iâm like, I could have done a little better.â In the various suggestions that follow, Iâm not sure I see something that is a better use of funds, explicitly funds for donation, than AMF.
tl;drâThis was a highly frustrating listen, mostly because there are some interesting lines of critique I feel this podcast could have gone down in an alternate universe where Adam and Amy cared more to find out more about what EA actually is and what EA says. I donât think either of them are intentionally lying per se, but they definitely donât seem interested in questioning whether theyâve got the basic facts of the case right, and it just seems to lead them to make obviously wrong claims and just have a bad-quality discussion overall.
Including myself
I think in the second half Amy tries to ground this is local ties of community, solidarity, and mutual aid. I just find these very unconvincing compared to the alternatives, to be honest.
again
Yes, I think there is a growing group of âleft-wing/âprogressiveâ people that attack EA with mostly lazy/âold arguments. To me, I feel they have a sizable audience that genuinely care about the state of the world, and maybe we could have something like an âAnti- Anti-EA F.A.Q.â, seeing as how Anti-âTESCREALâists are surging