I think recent events have been an update in favour of people in effective altruism being super talented, which means we should aim at the very top.
I also think I agree with the arguments that lower risk-aversion mean we should aim higher.
I wonder if these arguments especially bite at the ~$1bn+ project level i.e. there are a lot of startup founders aiming to found a unicorn and make $100m for themselves. But there’s very little personal benefit in going from, say $10bn company to $100bn.
My main push back is that I’m not sure people should be aiming to become billionaires, given the funding situation. I’d prefer to see people aim at the top in other paths e.g. winning a nobel prize, becoming president, founding a ‘megaproject’ non-profit etc.
(Though, it seems like the distribution of wealth might be one of the most heavy-tailed, so the rewards of aiming high there might be better than other paths, and EAs seem perhaps unusually good at earning money.)
Yes, I think it’s stronger evidence of EAs being good at making a lot of money (or of it being easier than expected to make a lot of money) than of EAs being super talented in general (though it’s some evidence of that as well).
I think the update is less about attempting to become a multi-billionaire vs direct work, and more about attempting to become a multi-billionaire over other E2G work.
I basically agree with the core point.
I think recent events have been an update in favour of people in effective altruism being super talented, which means we should aim at the very top.
I also think I agree with the arguments that lower risk-aversion mean we should aim higher.
I wonder if these arguments especially bite at the ~$1bn+ project level i.e. there are a lot of startup founders aiming to found a unicorn and make $100m for themselves. But there’s very little personal benefit in going from, say $10bn company to $100bn.
My main push back is that I’m not sure people should be aiming to become billionaires, given the funding situation. I’d prefer to see people aim at the top in other paths e.g. winning a nobel prize, becoming president, founding a ‘megaproject’ non-profit etc.
(Though, it seems like the distribution of wealth might be one of the most heavy-tailed, so the rewards of aiming high there might be better than other paths, and EAs seem perhaps unusually good at earning money.)
PS here are two threads from Sam on this topic:
https://twitter.com/sbf_ftx/status/1337250686870831107
https://twitter.com/sbf_ftx/status/1337904412149182464
Yes, I think it’s stronger evidence of EAs being good at making a lot of money (or of it being easier than expected to make a lot of money) than of EAs being super talented in general (though it’s some evidence of that as well).
It’s definitely stronger evidence of that :) Though I’ve also noticed EAs advancing ahead of my expectations in other areas, like government.
Yeah. Could be good to study EA success in different areas more systematically, as we get more empirical data.
I think the update is less about attempting to become a multi-billionaire vs direct work, and more about attempting to become a multi-billionaire over other E2G work.