The piece has several mistakes, and says several things that I disagree with (strongly), but it’s not a hit piece and I’d prefer to reserve that label for articles that are actively dishonest.
Separately, it’s not really about WWOTF (or MacAskill).
Separately, I’m not sure what the point of a response would be.
Agreed (with Zach). I found it to be much milder than described, and not surprising (Elon’s tweet, for example, wasn’t going to go unnoticed by press). The author makes similar statements as what I’m hearing from global health / suffering-focused EA friends. It’s a fair take and a natural part of the discourse as EA gets more attention—unlike the Wall Street Journal opinion piece, which was unhinged garbage. We have to take a long term view of the public discourse surrounding EA—a thoughtful response could be valuable, but not feeling the same level of urgency compared to other things (ex: reducing future reputation risks).
longtermism a “feel-good issue” and leans almost entirely on the false premise that tech billionaires are trying to remove funding for people who exist today;
But it’s entirely fair to say that longtermists argue that less money should go to global health, near-term causes, etc. If you think that “longtermism should be a higher priority than near-termism”, given that available resources are limited, you are arguing for shifting at least some resources from the latter to the former. If (like me), you think that statement is wrong, then this is a tragic turn of events, and It’s okay to say that you feel that way.
I actually think this is the best critique of Longtermism I’ve seen in mainstream media, and I mostly agree with it. The only “mistake” is neglecting to mention EAs still put hundreds of millions a year into global health and poverty.
Does she treat expected values in a matter that’s not really the right one? Yeah; but so do most Longtermists.
The piece has several mistakes, and says several things that I disagree with (strongly), but it’s not a hit piece and I’d prefer to reserve that label for articles that are actively dishonest.
Separately, it’s not really about WWOTF (or MacAskill).
Separately, I’m not sure what the point of a response would be.
Agreed (with Zach). I found it to be much milder than described, and not surprising (Elon’s tweet, for example, wasn’t going to go unnoticed by press). The author makes similar statements as what I’m hearing from global health / suffering-focused EA friends. It’s a fair take and a natural part of the discourse as EA gets more attention—unlike the Wall Street Journal opinion piece, which was unhinged garbage. We have to take a long term view of the public discourse surrounding EA—a thoughtful response could be valuable, but not feeling the same level of urgency compared to other things (ex: reducing future reputation risks).
But it’s entirely fair to say that longtermists argue that less money should go to global health, near-term causes, etc. If you think that “longtermism should be a higher priority than near-termism”, given that available resources are limited, you are arguing for shifting at least some resources from the latter to the former. If (like me), you think that statement is wrong, then this is a tragic turn of events, and It’s okay to say that you feel that way.
I actually think this is the best critique of Longtermism I’ve seen in mainstream media, and I mostly agree with it. The only “mistake” is neglecting to mention EAs still put hundreds of millions a year into global health and poverty.
Does she treat expected values in a matter that’s not really the right one? Yeah; but so do most Longtermists.