It’s fine to mention other factors too, but the claim (at least from the outline) seems to be that “it’s hard to tell” rather than “there are no large differences in impact”. Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.
The standard EA claim is that your decisions matter a lot because there are massive differences in impact between different altruistic options, ex ante. The core claim in this post, as I read it, is that this is not true because for there to be massive differences ex ante we would (a) need to understand the impact of choices much better and (b) we would need to be in a world where far fewer people contribute to any given advance.
I agree that the post poses a challenge to the standard EA view.
I don’t see “There are no massive differences in impact between individuals” as an accurate characterization of the claim the argument is showing.
“There are no massive ex ante differences in impact between individuals” would be a reasonable title. Or perhaps “no massive identifiable differences”?
“Is that this is not true because for there to be massive differences ex ante we would (a) need to understand the impact of choices much better”—Sorry, that’s a non-sequitur. The state of the world is different from our knowledge of it. The map is not the territory.
“X is false” and “We don’t know whether X is true or false” are different statements.
(While I don’t think that the argument in the post does enough to support the conclusion in the title,) I think this is a case where the map is the important thing: when making decisions, we have to use ex ante impact (which depends on a map; although you can talk about doing it with respect to a better map than you have now) rather than ex post (which would be the territory). This is central enough that I think it’s natural to read claims about the distribution of impact as being about the ex ante distribution rather than the ex post one.
I can see why this might seem like an annoying technicality. I still think it’s important to be precise and rounding arguments off like this increases the chances that people talk past each other.
Wasn’t quite sure where best to respond in this thread, hope here makes decent sense.
I did actually seek to convey the claim that individuals do not differ massively in impact ex post (as well as ex ante, which I agree is the weaker and more easily defensible version of my claim). I was hoping to make that clear in this bullet point in the summary: “I claim that there are no massive differences in impact between individual interventions, individual organisations, and individual people, because impact is dispersed across [many actions]”. So, I do want to claim that: if we tried to apportion the impact of these consequences across contributing actions ex post, then no one individual action is massively higher in impact than the average action (with the caveat that net-negative actions and neutral actions are excluded; we only look at actions that have some substantial positive impact).
That said, I can see how my chosen title may be flawed because a) it leaves out large parts of what the post is about (adverse effects, conceptual debate); and b) it is stronger than my actual claim (the more truthful title would then need to be something like “There are probably no massive differences in impact between individuals (excluding individuals who have a net-negative or no significant impact on the world)”). I am not sure if I agree that the current title is actively misleading and click-baity, but I take seriously the concern that it could be. I’ll mull this over some more and might change the title if I conclude that it is indeed inappropriate.
[EDIT: Concluded that changing the title seems sensible and appropriate. I hope that the new title is better able to communicate fully what my post is about.]
I’m obviously not super happy about the downvote, but I appreciate that you left the comment to explain and push me to reconsider, so thank you for that.
Yeah, I’d often be happier with people being clearer about whether they mean ex ante or ex post. But I do think that when people are talking about “distribution of impact” it’s more important to clarify if they mean ex post (since that’s less often the useful meaning) than if they mean ex ante.
I agree it would be better if the post explicitly compared the ex-ante and ex-post ways of looking at impact, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the post make this distinction in its title.
I guess, though judging by the votes on your “I gave this a downvote for the clickbait title” it seems to me that a lot of us think you’re being unfair to the author.
I’m perfectly fine with holding an opinion that goes against the consensus. Maybe I could have worded it a bit better though? Happy to listen to any feedback on this.
It’s fine to mention other factors too, but the claim (at least from the outline) seems to be that “it’s hard to tell” rather than “there are no large differences in impact”. Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.
The standard EA claim is that your decisions matter a lot because there are massive differences in impact between different altruistic options, ex ante. The core claim in this post, as I read it, is that this is not true because for there to be massive differences ex ante we would (a) need to understand the impact of choices much better and (b) we would need to be in a world where far fewer people contribute to any given advance.
Sorry, I misread the definition of ex ante.
I agree that the post poses a challenge to the standard EA view.
I don’t see “There are no massive differences in impact between individuals” as an accurate characterization of the claim the argument is showing.
“There are no massive ex ante differences in impact between individuals” would be a reasonable title. Or perhaps “no massive identifiable differences”?
“Is that this is not true because for there to be massive differences ex ante we would (a) need to understand the impact of choices much better”—Sorry, that’s a non-sequitur. The state of the world is different from our knowledge of it. The map is not the territory.
“X is false” and “We don’t know whether X is true or false” are different statements.
(While I don’t think that the argument in the post does enough to support the conclusion in the title,) I think this is a case where the map is the important thing: when making decisions, we have to use ex ante impact (which depends on a map; although you can talk about doing it with respect to a better map than you have now) rather than ex post (which would be the territory). This is central enough that I think it’s natural to read claims about the distribution of impact as being about the ex ante distribution rather than the ex post one.
I can see why this might seem like an annoying technicality. I still think it’s important to be precise and rounding arguments off like this increases the chances that people talk past each other.
Wasn’t quite sure where best to respond in this thread, hope here makes decent sense.
I did actually seek to convey the claim that individuals do not differ massively in impact ex post (as well as ex ante, which I agree is the weaker and more easily defensible version of my claim). I was hoping to make that clear in this bullet point in the summary: “I claim that there are no massive differences in impact between individual interventions, individual organisations, and individual people, because impact is dispersed across [many actions]”. So, I do want to claim that: if we tried to apportion the impact of these consequences across contributing actions ex post, then no one individual action is massively higher in impact than the average action (with the caveat that net-negative actions and neutral actions are excluded; we only look at actions that have some substantial positive impact).
That said, I can see how my chosen title may be flawed because a) it leaves out large parts of what the post is about (adverse effects, conceptual debate); and b) it is stronger than my actual claim (the more truthful title would then need to be something like “There are probably no massive differences in impact between individuals (excluding individuals who have a net-negative or no significant impact on the world)”).
I am not sure if I agree that the current title is actively misleading and click-baity, but I take seriously the concern that it could be. I’ll mull this over some more and might change the title if I conclude that it is indeed inappropriate.
[EDIT: Concluded that changing the title seems sensible and appropriate. I hope that the new title is better able to communicate fully what my post is about.]
I’m obviously not super happy about the downvote, but I appreciate that you left the comment to explain and push me to reconsider, so thank you for that.
Yeah, I’d often be happier with people being clearer about whether they mean ex ante or ex post. But I do think that when people are talking about “distribution of impact” it’s more important to clarify if they mean ex post (since that’s less often the useful meaning) than if they mean ex ante.
I agree it would be better if the post explicitly compared the ex-ante and ex-post ways of looking at impact, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the post make this distinction in its title.
I suppose at this stage it’s probably best to just agree to disagree.
I guess, though judging by the votes on your “I gave this a downvote for the clickbait title” it seems to me that a lot of us think you’re being unfair to the author.
I’m perfectly fine with holding an opinion that goes against the consensus. Maybe I could have worded it a bit better though? Happy to listen to any feedback on this.