I disagree with the aptness of most of the meanings for “value alignment” you’ve proposed, and want to argue for the definition that I believe is correct. (I’m not disputing your claim that people often use “value-aligned” to mean “agrees with EA orthodoxy”, but I am claiming that those people are misusing the term.)
The true meaning of “value-aligned [with effective altruism]” is that someone:
places nonzero value on benefits to others (i.e. would be willing to pay some personal cost in order to make a benefit happen to someone else, even if they themself get absolutely none of the benefit)
believes that helping more is better than helping less
For example, you argue that those with heretical opinions or non-liberal-technocratic political views are flagged by EA orgs as “not value-aligned”. I think these people actually are value-aligned as long as they meet the above two criteria. I myself used to have extremely left-wing political views as a teenager, which I don’t think would disqualify someone from that status (and I would say I was already value-aligned back then). Even a socialist who spends their days sabotaging foreign aid shipments is value-aligned with us, if they’re doing this out of the belief that it’s the most effective way to help, but would switch to donating to GiveWell and working on AI alignment if they changed their beliefs on factual propositions about the scale and tractability of various problems.
I would be tempted to add something about being truth-seeking as well. So, is someone interested in updating their beliefs about what is more effective, or is this the last thing that they would want?
I think truth-seeking to the extent that you’re constantly trying to falsify your existing beliefs and find out if they should be different is too high a bar for this, but the first two conditions entail some lesser degree of truth-seeking. Like if you’re an eco-terrorist who bombs nuclear plants, but unbeknownst to you, coal plants are worse for the environment than nuclear plants, and someone informs you of that, you’d at a minimum switch to bombing coal plants, rather than ignoring the new information and continuing with your existing intervention. Seeking better opportunities and questioning your current plans is admirable and a positive thing many EAs do, but I don’t think it’s part of the minimum requirement for value alignment. I can think of a certain field where a lot of EAs work who don’t meet such a standard.
would switch to donating to GiveWell and working on AI alignment if they changed their beliefs on factual propositions about the scale and tractability of various problems.
Even this is an addition to your claimed values—the concept of tractability as understood in EA is only a proxy for impact, and often a bad one, not fitting cases where effect is non-linear. For example, if you’re a communist who believes the world would be much better after the revolution, obviously you’re going to have zero effect for most of the time, but then a large one if and when the revolution comes.
This exactly exemplifies the way that unconnected ideas creep in when we talk about being EA-aligned, even when we think it only means those two central values.
I disagree with the aptness of most of the meanings for “value alignment” you’ve proposed, and want to argue for the definition that I believe is correct. (I’m not disputing your claim that people often use “value-aligned” to mean “agrees with EA orthodoxy”, but I am claiming that those people are misusing the term.)
The true meaning of “value-aligned [with effective altruism]” is that someone:
places nonzero value on benefits to others (i.e. would be willing to pay some personal cost in order to make a benefit happen to someone else, even if they themself get absolutely none of the benefit)
believes that helping more is better than helping less
For example, you argue that those with heretical opinions or non-liberal-technocratic political views are flagged by EA orgs as “not value-aligned”. I think these people actually are value-aligned as long as they meet the above two criteria. I myself used to have extremely left-wing political views as a teenager, which I don’t think would disqualify someone from that status (and I would say I was already value-aligned back then). Even a socialist who spends their days sabotaging foreign aid shipments is value-aligned with us, if they’re doing this out of the belief that it’s the most effective way to help, but would switch to donating to GiveWell and working on AI alignment if they changed their beliefs on factual propositions about the scale and tractability of various problems.
I would be tempted to add something about being truth-seeking as well. So, is someone interested in updating their beliefs about what is more effective, or is this the last thing that they would want?
I think truth-seeking to the extent that you’re constantly trying to falsify your existing beliefs and find out if they should be different is too high a bar for this, but the first two conditions entail some lesser degree of truth-seeking. Like if you’re an eco-terrorist who bombs nuclear plants, but unbeknownst to you, coal plants are worse for the environment than nuclear plants, and someone informs you of that, you’d at a minimum switch to bombing coal plants, rather than ignoring the new information and continuing with your existing intervention. Seeking better opportunities and questioning your current plans is admirable and a positive thing many EAs do, but I don’t think it’s part of the minimum requirement for value alignment. I can think of a certain field where a lot of EAs work who don’t meet such a standard.
Even this is an addition to your claimed values—the concept of tractability as understood in EA is only a proxy for impact, and often a bad one, not fitting cases where effect is non-linear. For example, if you’re a communist who believes the world would be much better after the revolution, obviously you’re going to have zero effect for most of the time, but then a large one if and when the revolution comes.
This exactly exemplifies the way that unconnected ideas creep in when we talk about being EA-aligned, even when we think it only means those two central values.