Executive summary: Rethink Priorities conducted studies testing public responses to different framings of Effective Altruism (EA) and related concepts, finding that longtermism was consistently less popular than other terms, while global catastrophic risk reduction was relatively well-liked.
Key points:
Across multiple studies, longtermism performed poorly compared to other EA-related terms and concepts.
Global catastrophic risk reduction was relatively popular, whether presented as a term, description, or both.
Specific cause areas like AI safety and pandemic preparedness were generally better liked than broader concepts like EA or longtermism.
Effective giving/high impact giving were well-liked as terms but less popular when accompanied by descriptions.
Some demographic differences emerged, with longtermism and digital sentience relatively more appealing to younger respondents.
Authors caution against strong conclusions, noting results may depend on specific framings used and suggesting further research with larger samples and more varied designs.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Specific cause areas like AI safety and pandemic preparedness were generally better liked than broader concepts like EA or longtermism.
The summary was generally good, but I wouldn’t say the above exactly. In the one study where we tested specific causes against broader concepts, AI Safety and Pandemic preparedness were roughly neck and neck with the general broader concept Global catastrophic risk reduction. Those three were more popular than Climate change (specific), Effective Altruism and Effective Giving (broader), which were neck and neck with each other. And all were more effective than Longtermism. So there wasn’t a clear difference between specific cause area vs broader concept distinction.
Executive summary: Rethink Priorities conducted studies testing public responses to different framings of Effective Altruism (EA) and related concepts, finding that longtermism was consistently less popular than other terms, while global catastrophic risk reduction was relatively well-liked.
Key points:
Across multiple studies, longtermism performed poorly compared to other EA-related terms and concepts.
Global catastrophic risk reduction was relatively popular, whether presented as a term, description, or both.
Specific cause areas like AI safety and pandemic preparedness were generally better liked than broader concepts like EA or longtermism.
Effective giving/high impact giving were well-liked as terms but less popular when accompanied by descriptions.
Some demographic differences emerged, with longtermism and digital sentience relatively more appealing to younger respondents.
Authors caution against strong conclusions, noting results may depend on specific framings used and suggesting further research with larger samples and more varied designs.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
The summary was generally good, but I wouldn’t say the above exactly. In the one study where we tested specific causes against broader concepts, AI Safety and Pandemic preparedness were roughly neck and neck with the general broader concept Global catastrophic risk reduction. Those three were more popular than Climate change (specific), Effective Altruism and Effective Giving (broader), which were neck and neck with each other. And all were more effective than Longtermism. So there wasn’t a clear difference between specific cause area vs broader concept distinction.