Writing this in a purely personal capacity in my effort to comment more on forum posts as I think of responses:
This is just a general meta point but, to me, this post is trying to take on wayyyy too many ideas and claims. I was really intrigued by some of them and would like to see more thorough and detailed arguments for them (ie: the fog, where are the effects, arbitrage, and the ants) . However, since this tried to make so many separate points, many claims were left unsubstantiated which decreased my confidence in the post and most single points within it. Similarly, none of the individual points felt fleshed out enough for me to engage with them here in the comments.
I am excited about creative critical critiques but generally want the caution against posting too many (unless it is framed as: here is a list of half-baked critiques, let me know which ones intrigue you and I will elaborate on them). In general, I would love to be able to point to any single claim in a post and be able to understand where that came from. However, that is not happening here. So, I’m downvoting this post but looking forward to future ones!
Actually, I wanted to say something like this: “here is a list of half-baked critiques, let me know which ones intrigue you and I will elaborate on them”, but removed my introduction, as I think that it will be too personal. Below is what was cut:
“I consider myself an effective altruist: I strive for the benefit of the greatest number of people. I spent around 15 years of my life on topics which I consider EA.
At the same time, there is some difference in my understanding of EA from the “mainstream” EA: My view is that the real good is prevention of human extinction, the victory over death and in the possibility of unlimited evolution for everyone. This understanding in some aspects diverges from the generally accepted in EA, where more importance is given to the number of happy moments in human and animal life.
During my work, I encounter several potential criticisms of EA. In the following, I will briefly characterize each of them.”
Writing this in a purely personal capacity in my effort to comment more on forum posts as I think of responses:
This is just a general meta point but, to me, this post is trying to take on wayyyy too many ideas and claims. I was really intrigued by some of them and would like to see more thorough and detailed arguments for them (ie: the fog, where are the effects, arbitrage, and the ants) . However, since this tried to make so many separate points, many claims were left unsubstantiated which decreased my confidence in the post and most single points within it. Similarly, none of the individual points felt fleshed out enough for me to engage with them here in the comments.
I am excited about creative critical critiques but generally want the caution against posting too many (unless it is framed as: here is a list of half-baked critiques, let me know which ones intrigue you and I will elaborate on them). In general, I would love to be able to point to any single claim in a post and be able to understand where that came from. However, that is not happening here. So, I’m downvoting this post but looking forward to future ones!
Actually, I wanted to say something like this: “here is a list of half-baked critiques, let me know which ones intrigue you and I will elaborate on them”, but removed my introduction, as I think that it will be too personal. Below is what was cut:
“I consider myself an effective altruist: I strive for the benefit of the greatest number of people. I spent around 15 years of my life on topics which I consider EA.
At the same time, there is some difference in my understanding of EA from the “mainstream” EA: My view is that the real good is prevention of human extinction, the victory over death and in the possibility of unlimited evolution for everyone. This understanding in some aspects diverges from the generally accepted in EA, where more importance is given to the number of happy moments in human and animal life.
During my work, I encounter several potential criticisms of EA. In the following, I will briefly characterize each of them.”