āWhat if...? Have you run the calculations? ā¦ On the face of it...ā
Did you even read the OP? Your comments amount to nothing more than āBut my naive utilitarian calculations suggest that these bad acts could really easily be justified after all!ā Which is simply non-responsive to the arguments against naive utilitarianism.
Iām not going to repeat the whole OP in response to your comments. You repeatedly affirm that you think naive calculations, unconstrained by our most basic social knowledge about reliable vs counterproductive means of achieving social goals, are suited to answering these questions. But thatās precisely the mistake that the OP is arguing against.
Is there anything at all that could convince you that EV reasoning is not infallible?
This is backwards. You are the one repeatedly invoking naive āEV reasoningā (i.e. calculations) as supposedly the true measure of expected value. Iām arguing that true expected value is best approximated when constrained by reliable heuristics.
If you do disagree, then: What does it mean, in your view, for something to be a āproblemā?
I mean for it to be false, unjustified, and something we should vociferously warn people against. Not every causal contribution to a bad outcome is a āproblemā in this sense. Oxygen also causally contributed to every bad action by a humanāwithout oxygen, the bad act would not have been committed. Even so, oxygen is not the problem.
You repeatedly affirm that you think naive calculations, unconstrained by our most basic social knowledge about reliable vs counterproductive means of achieving social goals, are suited to answering these questions
Where did I say this?
Iām not going to repeat the whole OP in response to your comments.
Youāre assuming that you responded to my question in the original post. But you didnāt. Your post just says ātrust me guys, the math checks outā. But I see no math. So where did you get this from?
Iām arguing that true expected value is best approximated when constrained by reliable heuristics.
āArguingā? Or asserting?
If these are arguments, they are not quite strong. No one outside of EA is convinced by this post. Iām not sure if you saw, but this post has even become the subject of ridicule on Twitter.
Not every causal contribution to a bad outcome is a āproblemā in this sense. Oxygen also causally contributed to every bad action by a humanāwithout oxygen, the bad act would not have been committed.
Okay, I didnāt realize we were going back to PHIL 101 here. If you need me to spell this out explicitly: SBF chose his career choice because he was encouraged by prominent EA leaders to earn to give. Without EA, he would have never had the means to start FTX. The-earn-to-give model encourages shady business practices.
The connection is obvious.
Saying this has nothing to do with EA is like saying the Stalinās governance had nothing to do with Marxism.
Denying the link is delusional and makes us look like a cult.
āWhat if...? Have you run the calculations? ā¦ On the face of it...ā
Did you even read the OP? Your comments amount to nothing more than āBut my naive utilitarian calculations suggest that these bad acts could really easily be justified after all!ā Which is simply non-responsive to the arguments against naive utilitarianism.
Iām not going to repeat the whole OP in response to your comments. You repeatedly affirm that you think naive calculations, unconstrained by our most basic social knowledge about reliable vs counterproductive means of achieving social goals, are suited to answering these questions. But thatās precisely the mistake that the OP is arguing against.
This is backwards. You are the one repeatedly invoking naive āEV reasoningā (i.e. calculations) as supposedly the true measure of expected value. Iām arguing that true expected value is best approximated when constrained by reliable heuristics.
I mean for it to be false, unjustified, and something we should vociferously warn people against. Not every causal contribution to a bad outcome is a āproblemā in this sense. Oxygen also causally contributed to every bad action by a humanāwithout oxygen, the bad act would not have been committed. Even so, oxygen is not the problem.
Where did I say this?
Youāre assuming that you responded to my question in the original post. But you didnāt. Your post just says ātrust me guys, the math checks outā. But I see no math. So where did you get this from?
āArguingā? Or asserting?
If these are arguments, they are not quite strong. No one outside of EA is convinced by this post. Iām not sure if you saw, but this post has even become the subject of ridicule on Twitter.
Okay, I didnāt realize we were going back to PHIL 101 here. If you need me to spell this out explicitly: SBF chose his career choice because he was encouraged by prominent EA leaders to earn to give. Without EA, he would have never had the means to start FTX. The-earn-to-give model encourages shady business practices.
The connection is obvious.
Saying this has nothing to do with EA is like saying the Stalinās governance had nothing to do with Marxism.
Denying the link is delusional and makes us look like a cult.