Have a listen to Sam Harris’s most recent podcast, and Matt Yglesias’s Substack post about the FTX collapse. I think both of those takes expressed some level of distance and discomfort with EA as a whole. Sam Harris called it “cultish”, and Matt Yglesias was also uneasy about various aspects of the community.
But both of them said that the appeal of EA’s original motivating ideal remains very clear and strong, no matter how badly the community itself has generated problems. Specifically, trying to figure out how to do good more effectively using reason and evidence is a robustly good goal to aim for. I think the appeal of that goal is very wide, and will remain regardless of the reputation or health of the EA community.
I suspect the health of the community is really up to how we all respond to the present crisis in the coming months. If the community responds well, with humility and a readiness to learn a lesson, adjust, and pivot appropriately, that will increase the odds we’re able to overcome the current crisis. If we don’t learn from it, odds of survival are lower, and that would probably be for the best. I have an impulse to link to one of my favorite takes on what specifically the community needs to do to improve. But I think it’s best I refrain, and focus on the meta-claim that it is critically important we do need to learn and be willing to make very radical pivots if we are to (a) survive and (b) deserve surviving.
To get a bit more concrete, people will be more a bit more wary of the community, but I think that’s probably healthy. Frankly, I think outsiders are blaming SBF specifically, and crypto generally, more than they are currently blaming EA, and if that continues, I don’t think people will be unduly wary, and thus, I think if EA can take genuine steps to appropriately course-correct, it will retain its ability to attract new people to its causes.
I am optimistic the community can learn. Several of EA’s most prominent leaders pivoted over the last decade toward longtermist cause areas. We’ve gone from (in the early 2010s) focusing on funding charities that help people living now, to (in the mid 2010s) framing EA as somewhat equally divided between x-risk, global poverty, animal welfare, and meta-EA, and then (from the late 2010s to now) developing a primary focus on x-risk and longtermism. The evolution of EA over that time involved substantial changes at each step. I am not not saying whether I think they should pivot away from longtermism specifically as a reaction to the current crisis. But seeing the community and its leaders pivot over the last decade or so then gives me some hope they are able to do it again.
In summary I think the original ideal EA identified are highly attractive and likely to remain strong. The present cause areas and many of the more established institutions are also likely to remain funded and to make solid progress. I think the community does need to learn from the current crisis; if it does not, it might not recover, and might not deserve to recover. But the community has made changes in its focuses in the past, and that gives me hope we can do it again.
Have a listen to Sam Harris’s most recent podcast, and Matt Yglesias’s Substack post about the FTX collapse. I think both of those takes expressed some level of distance and discomfort with EA as a whole. Sam Harris called it “cultish”, and Matt Yglesias was also uneasy about various aspects of the community.
But both of them said that the appeal of EA’s original motivating ideal remains very clear and strong, no matter how badly the community itself has generated problems. Specifically, trying to figure out how to do good more effectively using reason and evidence is a robustly good goal to aim for. I think the appeal of that goal is very wide, and will remain regardless of the reputation or health of the EA community.
I suspect the health of the community is really up to how we all respond to the present crisis in the coming months. If the community responds well, with humility and a readiness to learn a lesson, adjust, and pivot appropriately, that will increase the odds we’re able to overcome the current crisis. If we don’t learn from it, odds of survival are lower, and that would probably be for the best. I have an impulse to link to one of my favorite takes on what specifically the community needs to do to improve. But I think it’s best I refrain, and focus on the meta-claim that it is critically important we do need to learn and be willing to make very radical pivots if we are to (a) survive and (b) deserve surviving.
To get a bit more concrete, people will be more a bit more wary of the community, but I think that’s probably healthy. Frankly, I think outsiders are blaming SBF specifically, and crypto generally, more than they are currently blaming EA, and if that continues, I don’t think people will be unduly wary, and thus, I think if EA can take genuine steps to appropriately course-correct, it will retain its ability to attract new people to its causes.
I am optimistic the community can learn. Several of EA’s most prominent leaders pivoted over the last decade toward longtermist cause areas. We’ve gone from (in the early 2010s) focusing on funding charities that help people living now, to (in the mid 2010s) framing EA as somewhat equally divided between x-risk, global poverty, animal welfare, and meta-EA, and then (from the late 2010s to now) developing a primary focus on x-risk and longtermism. The evolution of EA over that time involved substantial changes at each step. I am not not saying whether I think they should pivot away from longtermism specifically as a reaction to the current crisis. But seeing the community and its leaders pivot over the last decade or so then gives me some hope they are able to do it again.
In summary I think the original ideal EA identified are highly attractive and likely to remain strong. The present cause areas and many of the more established institutions are also likely to remain funded and to make solid progress. I think the community does need to learn from the current crisis; if it does not, it might not recover, and might not deserve to recover. But the community has made changes in its focuses in the past, and that gives me hope we can do it again.