Another judge for the criticism contest here—figured I would share some personal highlights from the contest as well! I read much fewer submissions than the most active panelists (s/o to them for their hard work!), but given that I hold minority viewpoints in the context of EA (non-consequentialist, leftist), I thought people might find these interesting.
To be clear, I still think there are important classes of critique missing. I would probably have framed the contest differently to encourage them, perhaps like what Michael Nielsen suggests here:
It would be amusing to have a second judging panel, of people strongly opposed to EA, and perhaps united by some other ideology. I wouldn’t be surprised if they came to different conclusions.
I also basically agree with the critiques made in Zvi’s criticism of the contest. All that said, below are some of my favorite (1) philosophical (2) ideological (3) object-level critiques.
(1) Philosophical Critiques
Population Ethics Without Axiology: A Framework Lukas Gloor’s critique of axiological thinking was spot-on IMO. It gets at heart of why utilitarian EA/longtermism can lead to absurd conclusions, and how contractualist “minimal morality” addresses them. I think if people took Gloor’s post seriously, it would strongly affect their views about what it means to “do good” in the first place: In order to “not be a jerk”, one need not care about creating future happy people, whereas one probably should care about e.g. (global and intergenerational) justice.
On the Philosophical Foundations of EA I also liked this critique of several EA arguments for consequentialism by Will MacAskill and AFAIK shared by other influential EAs like Holdern Karnofsky and Nick Beckstead. Korsgaard’s response to Parfit’s argument (against person-affecting views) was new to me!
Deontology, the Paralysis Argument and altruistic longtermism Speaking of non-consequentialism, this one is more niche, but William D’Alessandro’s refutation of Mogensen & MacAskill’s “paralysis argument” that deontologists should be longtermists hit the spot IMO. The critique concludes that EAs / longtermists need to do better if they want to convince deontologists, which I very much agree with.
A few other philosophical critiques I’ve yet to fully read, but was still excited to see:
I’m distinguishing these from the philosophical critiques, in that they are about EA as a lived practice and actually existing social movement. At least in my experience, the strongest disagreements with EA are generally ideological ones.
Unsurprisingly, there wasn’t participation from the most vocal online critics! (Why make EA better if you think it should disappear?) But at least one piece did examine the “EA is too white, Western & male” and “EA is neocolonialist” critiques in depth:
Red-teaming contest: demographics and power structures in EA The piece focuses on GiveWell and how it chooses “moral weights” as a case study. It then makes recommendations for democratizing ethical decision-making, power-sharing and increasing relevant geographic diversity.
IMO this was a highly under-rated submission. It should have gotten a prize (at least $5k)! The piece doesn’t say this itself, but it points toward a version of the EA movement that is majority non-white and non-Western, which I find both possible and desirable.
There was also a slew of critiques about the totalizing nature of EA as a lived practice (many of which were awarded prizes):
Effective altruism in the garden of ends I particularly liked this critique for being a first-person account from a (formerly) highly-involved EA about how such totalizing thinking can be really destructive.
Notes on Effective Altruism I also appreciated Michael Nielsen’s critique, which discusses the aforementioned “EA misery trap”, and also coins the term “EA judo” for how criticisms of EA are taken to merely improve EA, not discredit it.
Leaning into EA Disillusionment A related piece is about disillusionment with EA, and how to lean into it. I liked how it creates more space for sympathetic critics of EA with a lot of inside knowledge—including those of us who’ve never been especially “illusioned” in the first place!
That’s it for the ideological critiques. This is the class of critique that felt the most lacking in my opinion. I personally would’ve liked more well-informed critiques from the Left, whether socialist or anarchist, on terms that EAs could appreciate. (Most such critiques I’ve seen are either no longer as relevant or feel too uncharitable to be constructive.)
(And maybe stay tuned for The Political Limits of Effective Altruism, the pessimistic critique I’ve yet to write about the possibility of EA ever achieving what mass political movements achieve.)
(3) Object-Level Critiques
Biological Anchors External Review On AI risk, I’d be remiss not to highlight Jennifer Lin’s review of the influential Biological Anchors report on AI timelines. I appreciated both the arguments against the neural network anchor, and the evolutionary anchor, and have become less convinced by the evolutionary anchor as a prediction for transformative AI by 2100.
A Critique of AI Takeover Scenarios I also appreciated James Fodor’s critique of AI takeover scenarios put forth by influential EAs like Holden Karnofsky and Ajeya Cotra. I share the skepticism about the takeover stories I’ve seen so far, which have often seemed to me way too quick and subjective in their reasoning.
The most important climate change uncertainty Outside of AI risk, I was glad to see this piece on climate change get an honorable mention! It dissects the disconnect between EA consensus and non-EAs about climate risk, and argues for more caution. (Disclosure: This was written by a friend, so I didn’t vote on it.)
Red Teaming CEA’s Community Building Work Finally, I also appreciated this extensive critique of CEA’s community-building work. I’ve yet to read it in full, but it resonates with challenges working with CEA I’ve witnessed while on the board of another EA organization.
There’s of course tons more that I didn’t get the chance to read. I wish I’d had the time! While the results of the contest of won’t please everyone—much less the most trenchant EA critics—I still think the world is still better for it, and I’m now more optimistic about this particular contest format and incentive scheme than I was previously.
Personal highlights from a non-consequentialist, left-leaning panelist
(Cross-posted from Twitter.)
Another judge for the criticism contest here—figured I would share some personal highlights from the contest as well! I read much fewer submissions than the most active panelists (s/o to them for their hard work!), but given that I hold minority viewpoints in the context of EA (non-consequentialist, leftist), I thought people might find these interesting.
I was initially pretty skeptical of the contest, and its ability to attract thoughtful foundational critiques. But now that the contest is over, I’ve been pleasantly surprised!
To be clear, I still think there are important classes of critique missing. I would probably have framed the contest differently to encourage them, perhaps like what Michael Nielsen suggests here:
I also basically agree with the critiques made in Zvi’s criticism of the contest. All that said, below are some of my favorite (1) philosophical (2) ideological (3) object-level critiques.
(1) Philosophical Critiques
Population Ethics Without Axiology: A Framework
Lukas Gloor’s critique of axiological thinking was spot-on IMO. It gets at heart of why utilitarian EA/longtermism can lead to absurd conclusions, and how contractualist “minimal morality” addresses them. I think if people took Gloor’s post seriously, it would strongly affect their views about what it means to “do good” in the first place: In order to “not be a jerk”, one need not care about creating future happy people, whereas one probably should care about e.g. (global and intergenerational) justice.
On the Philosophical Foundations of EA
I also liked this critique of several EA arguments for consequentialism by Will MacAskill and AFAIK shared by other influential EAs like Holdern Karnofsky and Nick Beckstead. Korsgaard’s response to Parfit’s argument (against person-affecting views) was new to me!
Deontology, the Paralysis Argument and altruistic longtermism
Speaking of non-consequentialism, this one is more niche, but William D’Alessandro’s refutation of Mogensen & MacAskill’s “paralysis argument” that deontologists should be longtermists hit the spot IMO. The critique concludes that EAs / longtermists need to do better if they want to convince deontologists, which I very much agree with.
A few other philosophical critiques I’ve yet to fully read, but was still excited to see:
Magnus Vinding’s defense of suffering-focused ethics, contra Ord.
Jacy Anthis on why the future might be net-negative, contra MacAskill.
(2) Ideological Critiques
I’m distinguishing these from the philosophical critiques, in that they are about EA as a lived practice and actually existing social movement. At least in my experience, the strongest disagreements with EA are generally ideological ones.
Unsurprisingly, there wasn’t participation from the most vocal online critics! (Why make EA better if you think it should disappear?) But at least one piece did examine the “EA is too white, Western & male” and “EA is neocolonialist” critiques in depth:
Red-teaming contest: demographics and power structures in EA
The piece focuses on GiveWell and how it chooses “moral weights” as a case study. It then makes recommendations for democratizing ethical decision-making, power-sharing and increasing relevant geographic diversity.
IMO this was a highly under-rated submission. It should have gotten a prize (at least $5k)! The piece doesn’t say this itself, but it points toward a version of the EA movement that is majority non-white and non-Western, which I find both possible and desirable.
There was also a slew of critiques about the totalizing nature of EA as a lived practice (many of which were awarded prizes):
Effective altruism in the garden of ends
I particularly liked this critique for being a first-person account from a (formerly) highly-involved EA about how such totalizing thinking can be really destructive.
Notes on Effective Altruism
I also appreciated Michael Nielsen’s critique, which discusses the aforementioned “EA misery trap”, and also coins the term “EA judo” for how criticisms of EA are taken to merely improve EA, not discredit it.
Leaning into EA Disillusionment
A related piece is about disillusionment with EA, and how to lean into it. I liked how it creates more space for sympathetic critics of EA with a lot of inside knowledge—including those of us who’ve never been especially “illusioned” in the first place!
That’s it for the ideological critiques. This is the class of critique that felt the most lacking in my opinion. I personally would’ve liked more well-informed critiques from the Left, whether socialist or anarchist, on terms that EAs could appreciate. (Most such critiques I’ve seen are either no longer as relevant or feel too uncharitable to be constructive.)
There was one attempt to synthesize leftism and EA, but IMO not any better than this old piece by Joshua Kissel on “Effective Altruism and Anti-Capitalism”. There have also been some fledgling anarchist critiques circulating online that I would love to see written up in more detail.
(And maybe stay tuned for The Political Limits of Effective Altruism, the pessimistic critique I’ve yet to write about the possibility of EA ever achieving what mass political movements achieve.)
(3) Object-Level Critiques
Biological Anchors External Review
On AI risk, I’d be remiss not to highlight Jennifer Lin’s review of the influential Biological Anchors report on AI timelines. I appreciated both the arguments against the neural network anchor, and the evolutionary anchor, and have become less convinced by the evolutionary anchor as a prediction for transformative AI by 2100.
A Critique of AI Takeover Scenarios
I also appreciated James Fodor’s critique of AI takeover scenarios put forth by influential EAs like Holden Karnofsky and Ajeya Cotra. I share the skepticism about the takeover stories I’ve seen so far, which have often seemed to me way too quick and subjective in their reasoning.
Are you really in a race? The Cautionary Tales of Szilárd and Ellsberg
And of course, there’s Haydn Belfield’s cautionary tale about how nuclear researchers mistakenly thought they were in an arm’s race, and how the same could happen (has happened?) with the race to “AGI”.
The most important climate change uncertainty
Outside of AI risk, I was glad to see this piece on climate change get an honorable mention! It dissects the disconnect between EA consensus and non-EAs about climate risk, and argues for more caution. (Disclosure: This was written by a friend, so I didn’t vote on it.)
Red Teaming CEA’s Community Building Work
Finally, I also appreciated this extensive critique of CEA’s community-building work. I’ve yet to read it in full, but it resonates with challenges working with CEA I’ve witnessed while on the board of another EA organization.
There’s of course tons more that I didn’t get the chance to read. I wish I’d had the time! While the results of the contest of won’t please everyone—much less the most trenchant EA critics—I still think the world is still better for it, and I’m now more optimistic about this particular contest format and incentive scheme than I was previously.