(1) reduce the chance that effective altruism does end up co-opting and/or incorrectly taking credit. (I don’t expect that Shakeel was intentionally trying to do this.)
(2) Lower priority, but I was intrigued about how the phrase “in EA” was being used more generally. Context: I think that what gets counted as “EA” or not often rests a lot on self-identification, which I don’t see as a particularly important or useful consideration. I’m more interested in whether projects seem cost-effective (in expectation), or at least whether people seem to be actually be putting the ‘core principles’ of EA to good use. (Here’s CEA’s list on that.) I suspect what’s going on here though is more about whether the projects have been Open Phil funded.
I’m a “long time” “animal welfare” “EA” and I’m confused by Jamie’s thread here.
I agree that I think it’s possible to co-opt and take credit, and this is bad.
I’m not sure this has happened here. I don’t understand Jamie’s purpose. I’m worried his comment is unnecessarily disagreeable.
It’s good to have good people (EA) do good work on animal welfare. It’s great if this list draws attention to work that we think EAs should support.
Yeah, no particular purpose other than to
(1) reduce the chance that effective altruism does end up co-opting and/or incorrectly taking credit. (I don’t expect that Shakeel was intentionally trying to do this.)
(2) Lower priority, but I was intrigued about how the phrase “in EA” was being used more generally. Context: I think that what gets counted as “EA” or not often rests a lot on self-identification, which I don’t see as a particularly important or useful consideration. I’m more interested in whether projects seem cost-effective (in expectation), or at least whether people seem to be actually be putting the ‘core principles’ of EA to good use. (Here’s CEA’s list on that.) I suspect what’s going on here though is more about whether the projects have been Open Phil funded.