I wrote a 4k word feature on Progress Studies for BBC Future that just went up. (Tweet here). I explore:
the stagnation hypothesis
the origins of progress studies
what PS believes
will economic growth make us happier
frontier vs. catch-up growth, and how PS’s focus on the former reveals its biases
progress and existential risk
the future of the community
I think of PS as like EA circa ~2012. They have billionaire support and are quickly professionalizing. The community seems very interested in learning from EA and has responded to critiques that they are not focused enough on x-risk.
But they are different in important ways. Compared to EA, I think PS is:
more entrepreneurial, with a strong bias to action
less academic
more American, tech-y, and rooted in the Bay Area
less defined—PS is not nearly as rigorous or philosophically oriented
less demanding—PS doesn’t really ask much, if anything, from its followers. I think this may be a huge force multiplier for the community, as it will better appeal to wealthy tech people, but probably makes any individual member less effective
more neoliberal and libertarian (though, compared to these groups PS is quicker to recognize market failures and call for govt intervention)
more speciesist—the focus is just on human progress, and tech has clearly been net-bad for farmed animals IMO
more growth-oriented
For an interesting look at what the intersection of PS and EA looks like, check out the Institute for Progress, a new think tank funded by PS co-founder Patrick Collison, Open Phil, SBF, and others.
BBC Future longform article on Progress Studies (including connection between progress and risk)
Link post
I wrote a 4k word feature on Progress Studies for BBC Future that just went up. (Tweet here). I explore:
the stagnation hypothesis
the origins of progress studies
what PS believes
will economic growth make us happier
frontier vs. catch-up growth, and how PS’s focus on the former reveals its biases
progress and existential risk
the future of the community
I think of PS as like EA circa ~2012. They have billionaire support and are quickly professionalizing. The community seems very interested in learning from EA and has responded to critiques that they are not focused enough on x-risk.
But they are different in important ways. Compared to EA, I think PS is:
more entrepreneurial, with a strong bias to action
less academic
more American, tech-y, and rooted in the Bay Area
less defined—PS is not nearly as rigorous or philosophically oriented
less demanding—PS doesn’t really ask much, if anything, from its followers. I think this may be a huge force multiplier for the community, as it will better appeal to wealthy tech people, but probably makes any individual member less effective
more neoliberal and libertarian (though, compared to these groups PS is quicker to recognize market failures and call for govt intervention)
more speciesist—the focus is just on human progress, and tech has clearly been net-bad for farmed animals IMO
more growth-oriented
For an interesting look at what the intersection of PS and EA looks like, check out the Institute for Progress, a new think tank funded by PS co-founder Patrick Collison, Open Phil, SBF, and others.
Timeline
March 2017 - Roots of Progress blog starts
July 2018 - Stripe Press launches
July 2019 - “We Need a New Science of Progress” essay published in Atlantic
August 2019 - PS Slack channel launches
Oct 2019 - Roots of Progress becomes a nonprofit
Aug 2020 - Works in Progress online magazine starts
January 2022 - Institute for Progress think tank launches
Feb 2022 - Works in Progress acquired by Stripe Press
April 2022 - Progress Forum launches (sponsored by Roots of Progress)
May 2022 - The Atlantic Progress series launches