I wouldn’t state an unqualified opposition to the “use of the EA forum to promote causes without even attempting to argue they might be potential EA causes.” (I’ll call the promoted cause Cause Z.)
If people have already decided to donate to Cause Z, there’s value in them doing it as effectively as possible. And it’s plausible that this particular cause could have be at least relatively effective opportunities—it’s not in a developed country, it has broad scale, many people are dying, etc.
At some point I might find there are too many applying effectiveness to Cause Z posts, but I don’t think we are there. However, I do think it’s reasonable to hold this kind of post to a certain standard—and perhaps a higher standard than an ordinary post. One could reasonably conclude that “mostly the work of Gemini 2.5” falls below that standard, at least with this output. I do have a downvote on the original post for that reason—not out of hostility to the identified cause area or Cause Z posts more generally.
I wouldn’t state an unqualified opposition to the “use of the EA forum to promote causes without even attempting to argue they might be potential EA causes.” (I’ll call the promoted cause Cause Z.)
If people have already decided to donate to Cause Z, there’s value in them doing it as effectively as possible. And it’s plausible that this particular cause could have be at least relatively effective opportunities—it’s not in a developed country, it has broad scale, many people are dying, etc.
At some point I might find there are too many applying effectiveness to Cause Z posts, but I don’t think we are there. However, I do think it’s reasonable to hold this kind of post to a certain standard—and perhaps a higher standard than an ordinary post. One could reasonably conclude that “mostly the work of Gemini 2.5” falls below that standard, at least with this output. I do have a downvote on the original post for that reason—not out of hostility to the identified cause area or Cause Z posts more generally.