I’ve been talking a lot to an EA outsider, and she offers the following opinions (which I’m expressing in my own words; she hopes to flesh this out into a blog post at some point).
1) EA is arrogant
The name “effective altruism”
The name “effective altruist”
The attitude towards most charities and their supporters
The attitude of the Friendly AI people
2) EA is individualistic. It values individual wellbeing, not (for their own sake):
Art and culture
The environment
Communities
3) EA is top-down
Orgs like GiveWell call the shots
Charities aren’t based in the countries they’re trying to help
Donors are armchair-based, don’t visit the communities they’re trying to help
4) EA promotes incremental change, not systemic change
Charity rather than activism
Part of the capitalist system; money-focussed
5) EA is somewhat one-size-fits-all
donors have particular causes that are important to them
art patrons favour particular artists; they aren’t trying to “maximize the total amount of art in existence”
6) Many consequences are hidden
If you’re a teacher, how do you know what effect you ultimately have on your students?
7) How do you assess the actual needs of the communities you’re trying to help?
Have you asked them?
8) The whole Friendly AI thing is just creepy.
If it is real, it means a tiny elite is making huge decisions for everyone without consulting people if that’s what they want
Any one got good answers to 1), 8), and something that seems to be an element of 3) & 7) which is something like “there seems to be a real lack of actual experience living/befriending etc. your beneficiaries—surely this will help you learn what is important, and the validity of your data?” ?
I’ve been talking a lot to an EA outsider, and she offers the following opinions (which I’m expressing in my own words; she hopes to flesh this out into a blog post at some point).
1) EA is arrogant
The name “effective altruism”
The name “effective altruist”
The attitude towards most charities and their supporters
The attitude of the Friendly AI people
2) EA is individualistic. It values individual wellbeing, not (for their own sake):
Art and culture
The environment
Communities
3) EA is top-down
Orgs like GiveWell call the shots
Charities aren’t based in the countries they’re trying to help
Donors are armchair-based, don’t visit the communities they’re trying to help
4) EA promotes incremental change, not systemic change
Charity rather than activism
Part of the capitalist system; money-focussed
5) EA is somewhat one-size-fits-all
donors have particular causes that are important to them
art patrons favour particular artists; they aren’t trying to “maximize the total amount of art in existence”
6) Many consequences are hidden
If you’re a teacher, how do you know what effect you ultimately have on your students?
7) How do you assess the actual needs of the communities you’re trying to help?
Have you asked them?
8) The whole Friendly AI thing is just creepy.
If it is real, it means a tiny elite is making huge decisions for everyone without consulting people if that’s what they want
My suggestion: if you can’t think of an existing resource that answers one of these criticisms, then write it yourself.
Any one got good answers to 1), 8), and something that seems to be an element of 3) & 7) which is something like “there seems to be a real lack of actual experience living/befriending etc. your beneficiaries—surely this will help you learn what is important, and the validity of your data?” ?