Edit: I notice I am confused by the disagreement votes here. I’m not sure I’ve written anything particularly disagreeable compared to other Forum discussion on this video, so I can’t really tell what I wrote that people are disagreeing with or why. I don’t really have much information to update on in scenarios like this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So just finished watching it, and I was very pleasantly surprised. It’s a ~40 minute YouTube video from a channel with a wide audience and a keen eye on style and entertainment as well as content—so it’s not going to be equivalent to an in-depth philosophy journal article. But I thought, for a leftist critic of EA, it was actually very even handed. I would honestly classify it as one of the better criticisms I’ve come across recently. I think there’s more chance of me being got by Pascal’s Mugger than Abigail reading this, but if she is, I liked the video :)
Abigail has, I think, a commitment to engage with her subject matter even if she disagrees. This comes across throughout the video—there are some quips sure, but not Twitter-level dunks on EA. I also counted at least two points where she brought up Torres as taking criticism too far or being unfair to EA, and that was as much a repudiation as any other points in the video.
Thought The Precipice was better than What We Owe the Future.[2]
Earn-to-Give comes up a few times, which the movement has mostly moved away from promoting? I think it’s clear this will still be a jumping off point for critics.
Doesn’t argue for the FTX collapse to be the direct fault of EA philosophy. Actually made an interesting point near the end that EAs desire for influence/power may have made it an ‘easy mark’ for bad actors in the Crypto space like SBF.
Some discussion about the problem of measurability bias and how that biases EA away from systemic change. I think this has some validity, but also EAs love systemic change, so I don’t think this criticism fully lands. I think where EA lands on capitalism/anti-capitalism has yet to be fully explored—at least by the community directly.
The best criticisms, I think, come from the Institutional Critiques to EA. Drawing a line through Cremer/Kemp, EAs who sounded fire-alarms about Crypto, to the lack of transparency or concrete actions to reform in EA institutions, these resonated with me. I think she also makes a good point that EA can’t avoid political questions of ‘effective for who’, ‘good for who’, how we trade off rights between moral patients (e.g. past/future people, humans/non-human animals, impartial people/those we have duties to). These have important political consequences, and we probably need to own that better.
Ends the video by not taking an anti-EA stance at all. Implies that where you stand on EA will depend on other philosophical/moral commitments you have.
I think if you adjust your priors accordingly (Leftist/Marxist critic, 40 minute YouTube video, Made for an audience mostly unfamiliar with EA) then actually it comes off quite well. If you have the time/temperament, I’d recommend watching.
Thank you for linking to EAs love systemic change! Now I am sad that “While some people should earn to give, we expect the right share is under 20%, and think that ‘earning to give’ is now more popular among the people who follow our advice than it ideally would be.” seems to already have been the consensus in 2015; I know many many people who got into EA later than that and were still mainly told about that even from other EAs. I would have hoped (and assumed) we would be much much quicker at adapting to new information.
Oh, and that post with its ominous ending of “We don’t want to burn the existing system to the ground” also brings me back to the PhilosophyTube video: In the ending, Abigail just dispassionately asks whether we should work within the existing structures or overthrow them and then says to decide for yourself—instead of saying the (I think?) obvious thing out loud: hell yeah identify and overthrow any and all oppressive structures asap, but until then, use whatever structures there are to reduce suffering already, and also after, keep working within the new structures to keep doing better. Like, this is not a binary choice and no matter how big or small a “revolution” we will be able to pull off, we will never be done either way.
Edit: I notice I am confused by the disagreement votes here. I’m not sure I’ve written anything particularly disagreeable compared to other Forum discussion on this video, so I can’t really tell what I wrote that people are disagreeing with or why. I don’t really have much information to update on in scenarios like this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So just finished watching it, and I was very pleasantly surprised. It’s a ~40 minute YouTube video from a channel with a wide audience and a keen eye on style and entertainment as well as content—so it’s not going to be equivalent to an in-depth philosophy journal article. But I thought, for a leftist critic of EA, it was actually very even handed. I would honestly classify it as one of the better criticisms I’ve come across recently. I think there’s more chance of me being got by Pascal’s Mugger than Abigail reading this, but if she is, I liked the video :)
Some points I’ve noted down:[1]
Abigail has, I think, a commitment to engage with her subject matter even if she disagrees. This comes across throughout the video—there are some quips sure, but not Twitter-level dunks on EA. I also counted at least two points where she brought up Torres as taking criticism too far or being unfair to EA, and that was as much a repudiation as any other points in the video.
Thought The Precipice was better than What We Owe the Future.[2]
Earn-to-Give comes up a few times, which the movement has mostly moved away from promoting? I think it’s clear this will still be a jumping off point for critics.
Doesn’t argue for the FTX collapse to be the direct fault of EA philosophy. Actually made an interesting point near the end that EAs desire for influence/power may have made it an ‘easy mark’ for bad actors in the Crypto space like SBF.
Some discussion about the problem of measurability bias and how that biases EA away from systemic change. I think this has some validity, but also EAs love systemic change, so I don’t think this criticism fully lands. I think where EA lands on capitalism/anti-capitalism has yet to be fully explored—at least by the community directly.
The best criticisms, I think, come from the Institutional Critiques to EA. Drawing a line through Cremer/Kemp, EAs who sounded fire-alarms about Crypto, to the lack of transparency or concrete actions to reform in EA institutions, these resonated with me. I think she also makes a good point that EA can’t avoid political questions of ‘effective for who’, ‘good for who’, how we trade off rights between moral patients (e.g. past/future people, humans/non-human animals, impartial people/those we have duties to). These have important political consequences, and we probably need to own that better.
Ends the video by not taking an anti-EA stance at all. Implies that where you stand on EA will depend on other philosophical/moral commitments you have.
I think if you adjust your priors accordingly (Leftist/Marxist critic, 40 minute YouTube video, Made for an audience mostly unfamiliar with EA) then actually it comes off quite well. If you have the time/temperament, I’d recommend watching.
For a more in-depth summary, I’d recommend Jessica’s post
I agree
Thank you for linking to EAs love systemic change!
Now I am sad that “While some people should earn to give, we expect the right share is under 20%, and think that ‘earning to give’ is now more popular among the people who follow our advice than it ideally would be.” seems to already have been the consensus in 2015; I know many many people who got into EA later than that and were still mainly told about that even from other EAs. I would have hoped (and assumed) we would be much much quicker at adapting to new information.
Oh, and that post with its ominous ending of “We don’t want to burn the existing system to the ground” also brings me back to the PhilosophyTube video: In the ending, Abigail just dispassionately asks whether we should work within the existing structures or overthrow them and then says to decide for yourself—instead of saying the (I think?) obvious thing out loud: hell yeah identify and overthrow any and all oppressive structures asap, but until then, use whatever structures there are to reduce suffering already, and also after, keep working within the new structures to keep doing better. Like, this is not a binary choice and no matter how big or small a “revolution” we will be able to pull off, we will never be done either way.