âso it will be a destructive feedback loopâ ~ not necessarily
âyouâre reinforcing an assumption that they canât get alongâ ~ unlikely
âwhenever a group of people [...] extreme end of the spectrum, who are the most closed-minded and intolerantâ ~ very big presumptions
I personally think this chat is a great idea. Too many times on Facebook groups, I have to see local events that I canât attend. Too many times I see EA posts that have no relevance to my involvement in EA. That doesnât mean Iâm closed-minded. Most EAs, picking animal suffering or global poverty, are the most open-minded people in my opinion.
Perhaps think about it like the difference between the Physics Stack Exchange chat and the Electrical Engineering (EE) Stack Exchange chat. Theyâre very close to the same. EE is based in physics obviously. But theyâre separate.
All three of those are merely cases of you disagreeing with my claims or my confidence in them. I thought I was being tone-policed, but you are just saying that I am wrong.
Too many times on Facebook groups, I have to see local events that I canât attend.
The fact that people are unable to attend something is one of the problems with the server that is being promoted here. Iâm not in favor of anything in EA that does this, if someone ever tries to exclude near-term EAs from their event then give me a ping and I will argue with them too!
Too many times I see EA posts that have no relevance to my involvement in EA.
Theoretical physicists are not upset by the presence of discussion on experimental physics, and the ones who disbelieve in dark matter are not upset by the presence of discussion from people who do. If lots of posts arenât relevant to you, the right answer is presumably to ignore those posts; I and so many other EAs do it all the time, itâs easy.
If you want more content that is relevant to you⊠thatâs perfect! Make it! Request it! Ask questions about it! Be the change that you wish to see in the world.
Perhaps think about it like the difference between the Physics Stack Exchange chat and the Electrical Engineering (EE) Stack Exchange chat. Theyâre very close to the same. EE is based in physics obviously. But theyâre separate.
The physics stack exchange doesnât try to exclude engineers, and they didnât make it because they thought that engineers were âalienatingâ; if they operated on that basis then it would create unnecessary annoyance for everyone. They separate because they are different topics, with different questions that need to be answered, and the skills and education which are relevant to one are very different from those that matter for another. But ânear-term Effective Altruismâ, just like âlong-term Effective Altruismâ, is a poorly specified bundle of positions with no common methodological thread. The common thread within each bundle is not any legitimate underlying presupposition about values or methodology that may form the foundation for further inquiry, it is an ex post facto conclusion that the right cause is something that happens to be short- or long-term. And while some cause conclusions could form a meaningful basis for significant further inquiry (e.g., you selected poverty as a cause, so now you just want to talk about poverty relief), the mere conclusion that the right cause is something that matters in the near or long term does not form any meaningful basis, because there is little in the way of general ideas, tools, resources, or methodologies which matter greatly for one bundle of causes but not the other.
But not only is the original analogy with physics and engineering relevantly incorrect, itâs specifically pernicious, because many EAs already implicitly have the misconception that supporting near-term or long-term causes is a matter of philosophical presupposition or overarching methodology; in fact it is probably the greatest confusion that EAs have about EA and therefore it wouldnât be wise to reinforce it.
@kbog: Most of your responses with respect to my reply do not make sense. Example, EA Chicago posts their events on the Facebook page. I donât live in Chicago...(simple as that)
The physics stack exchange doesnât try to exclude engineers
~ completely missed the point. Additionally, the analogy is fine. There is seldom such a thing as an absolute analogy. With that, it doesnât follow that somehow the analogy is wrong related to these elusively implicit misconceptions by EAs about EAs.
So to sum up, youâre reading in way too far to what I wrote originally. I was answering your question related to why your first reply was âharsher than necessaryâ.
EA Chicago posts their events on the Facebook page. I donât live in Chicago...(simple as that)
OK, but has nothing to do with whether or not we should have this discord server⊠why bring it up? In the context of your statements, canât you see how much it looks like someone is complaining that there are too many events that only appeal to EAs who support long-term causes, and too few events for EAs who support near-term causes?
~ completely missed the point. Additionally, the analogy is fine. There is seldom such a thing as an absolute analogy
Itâs not that the analogy was not absolute, itâs that it was relevantly wrong for the topic of discussion. But given that your argument doesnât seem to be what I thought it was, thatâs fine, it could very well be relevant for your point.
I was answering your question related to why your first reply was âharsher than necessaryâ.
I figured that âharshâ refers to tone. If I insult you, or try to make you feel bad, or inject vicious sarcasm, then Iâm being harsh. You didnât talk about anything along those lines, but you did seem to be disputing my claims about the viability of the OP, so I took it to be a defense of having this new discord server. If youâre not talking on either of those issues then I donât know what your point is.
They were examples to how I saw how your post as âharsher than necessaryâ. Youâve diluted these mere examples into a frivolous debate. If you believe you were not harsh at all, then believe what you want to believe.
As I stated already, âharshâ is a question of tone, and you clearly werenât talking about my tone. So I have no clue what your position is or what you were trying to accomplish by providing your examples. Thereâs nothing I can do in the absence of clarification.
Diction and pronouns have tone (e.g., âyouâre reinforcingâ vs a more modest âthat could reinforceâ). With that, expressing certainty, about predictions (e.g., âwhenever a group of peopleâ) is another way I saw the original comment as harshâunless youâre an expert in the field (and a relevant study would help too). I, for one, am no anthropologist nor sociologist.
Iâm not debating if here. You asked how, and I quoted the statements I saw as the most harsh + most questionable.
[Iâm trying to say this lightly. Instead I could have made that last bit, â
furthest from the truthâ. But I didnât, because Iâm trying to demonstrate. (And thatâs not what I really mean anyway.)] I never said you are wrong about _ _ _ _ _. I said, it may not be true; it may be true.
You seem to still think the original comment was not harsher than necessary by your own definition of tone. Either way, Iâm guessing Mrs. Wise gave you much less confusing pointers with her PM.
Hi Kbog, I see your point concerning near/âfar-future ideas in principle. However, if you look at the practical execution of these ideas, things arenât following your lines of reasoning (unfortunately, of course). For instance, the community practices related to far-future focus (in particular AI-risks) have adopted the assessment of scientific research and the funding thereof, which I find lacking scientific rigor, transparency and overall validity (to the point that it makes no sense to speak of âeffectiveâ charity). Moreover, there is a large consensus about such evaluative practices: they are assumed as valid by OpenPhil and the EAF, and even when I tried to exchange arguments with both of these institutions, nothing has ever changed (Iâve never even managed to push them into a public dialogue on this topic). I see this problem as a potential danger for the EA community in whole (just think of the press getting their hands on this problem and arguing that EAs finance scientific research which is assumed effective, where it is unclear according to which criteria it would count as such; similarly for newcomers). In view of this, I think dividing these practices would be a great idea. The fact they are connected to âfar-future EAâ is secondary to me, and it is unfortunate that far-future ideas turned into a bubble of its own, closed towards criticism questioning the core of their EA methodology.
That said, I agree with some of your worries (see my other comment here).
Hi Kbog, I see your point concerning near/âfar-future ideas in principle. However, if you look at the practical execution of these ideas, things arenât following your lines of reasoning (unfortunately, of course).
Well the main point of my comment is that people should not reinforce wrong practices by institutionalizing them.
For instance, the community practices related to far-future focus (in particular AI-risks) has been embedded in the assessment of scientific research and the funding thereof,
What is it when money goes to Givewell or Animal Charity Evaluators? Funding scientific research. Donât poverty interventions need research? Animal advocacy campaigns? Plant-based meat? Is it only the futurists who are doing everything wrong when numerous complaints have been lodged at the research quality of Givewell and ACE?
which I find lacking scientific rigor, transparency and overall validity
Well I havenât claimed that the evaluation of futurist scientific research is rigorous, transparent or valid. I think you should make a compelling argument for that in a serious post. Telling us that you failed to persuade groups such as Open Phil and the EAF doesnât exactly show us that you are right.
Note: itâs particularly instructive here, as we evaluate the utility of the sort of segregation proposed by the OP, how the idea that EA ought to be split along these lines is bundled with the assertion that the Other Side is doing things âwrongâ; we can see that the nominally innocuous proposal for categorization is operationalized to effect the general discrediting of those with an opposing point of view, which is exactly why it is a bad thing.
just think of the press getting their hands on this problem and arguing that EAs finance scientific research which is assumed effective, where it is unclear according to which criteria it would count as such
Just think of the press reporting on us doing exactly the same thing as everyone else in science? If you are worried about bad press, the #1 thing you should avoid is trying to kick up the social divisions that would give them something actually juicy to report on.
closed towards criticism questioning the core of their EA methodology
Where is this criticism? Where are the arguments on cause prioritization? Where is the review of the relevant academic literature? Where is the quantitative modeling? I see people complain that their âcriticismsâ arenât being met, but when I look for these criticisms, the search for the original source bottoms out either in sparse lines of assertions in web comments, or quite old arguments that have already been accepted and answered, and in either case opponents are clearly ready and willing to engage with such criticism. The claim that people are âclosed towards criticismâ invariably turns out to be nothing but the fact that the complainant failed to change anyoneâs mind, but seldom does the complainant question whether they are right at all.
I have a few paper deadlines these days, so as much as I wish to respond with all the references, arguments, etc. I donât have the time. I plan on writing a post concerning EAFâs funding policy as well, where Iâll sum it up in a similar way as I did for OpenPhil.
That said, I donât think we shouldnât criticize the research done by near-future organizations, to the contrary. And I completely agree: itâd be great to have a forum devoted only to research practices and funding thereof. But concerning far-future funding, research is the only thing that can be funded, which makes it particularly troublesome.
Just think of the press reporting on us doing exactly the same thing as everyone else in science? If you are worried about bad press, the #1 thing you should avoid is trying to kick up the social divisions that would give them something actually juicy to report on.
Err, no. Funding by academic institutions follows a whole set of criteria (take the ERC scheme, for instance), which can of course be discussed on their own, but they aim at efficient and effective research. The funding of AI-risk related projects follows⊠well, nobody could ever specify to me any criteria to begin with, except âan anonymous reviewer whom we trust likes the projectâ or âthey seem to have many great publicationsâ, which once looked at donât really exist. Thatâs as far from academic procedures as it gets.
I assumed your post to be more of a nominal attempt to disagree with me than it really was, so the failure of some of its statements to constitute specific rebuttals of my points became irritating. Iâve edited my comment to be cleaner. I apologize for that.
Okay, and if we look at that post, we see some pretty complete and civil responses to your arguments. Seems like things are Working As Intended. I am responding some of your claims in that thread so that it gets collected in the right place. But going back to the conversation here, you seem to be pretty clear that it is possible to have effective and efficient science funding, even if Open Phil isnât doing it right. Plus, youâre only referring to Open Phil/âEAF, not everyone else who supports long term causes. So clearly it would be inappropriate for long term EA causes to be separated.
But concerning far-future funding, research is the only thing that can be funded, which makes it particularly troublesome.
We can push for political change at the national or international level, we can grow the EA movement, or do animal advocacy. Those are known and viable far-future cause areas, even if they donât get as much attention under that guise.
No worries! Thanks for that, and yes, I agree pretty much with everything you say here.
As for the discussion on far-future funding, it did start in the comments on my post, but it led nowhere near practical changes, in terms of transparency of proposed criteria used for the assessment of funded projects. Iâll try to write a separate, more general post on that.
My only point was that due to the high presence of âfar-future biasâ on this forum (I might be wrong, but much of downvoting-without-commenting seems to be at least a tendency towards biased outlooks) itâs nice to have some chats on more near-future related topics and strategies for promoting those goals. I see a chat channel more as a complementary venue to this forum than as an alternative.
Itâs extremely hard to identify bias without proper measurement/âquantification, because you need to separate it from actual differences in the strength of peopleâs arguments, as well as legitimate expression of a majority point of view, and your own bias. In any case, you are not going to get downvoted for talking about how to reduce poverty. Iâm not sure what youâre really worried about. At some point you have to accept that no discussion space is perfect, that attempts to replace good ones usually turn out to be worse, and that your time is better spent focusing on the issues. But when I look through your comment history, you seem to not be talking about near-future related topics and strategies, youâre just talking about meta stuff, Open Phil, the EA forums, critiques of the EA community, critiques of AI safety, the same old hot topics. Try things out before judging.
First, I disagree with your imperatives concerning what one should do before engaging in criticism. Thatâs a non-sequitur: we are able to reflect on multiple meta-issues without engaging in any of the object-related ones and at the same time we can have a genuine interest in reading the object-related issues. I am genuinely interested in reading about near-future improvement topics, while being genuinely interested in voicing opinion on all kinds of meta issues, especially those that are closely related to my own research topics.
Second, the fact that measuring bias is difficult doesnât mean bias doesnât exist.
Third, to use your phrase, I am not sure what you are really worried about: having different types of venues for discussion doesnât seem harmful especially if they concern different focus groups.
Thatâs a non-sequitur: we are able to reflect on multiple meta-issues without engaging in any of the object-related ones and at the same time we can have a genuine interest in reading the object-related issues
Mhm, itâs POSSIBLE to talk about it, bias MAY exist, etc, etc. Thereâs still a difference between speculation and argument.
having different types of venues for discussion doesnât seem harmful especially if they concern different focus groups.
different venues are fine, they must simply be split among legitimate lines (like light chat vs serious chat, or different specific causes; as I stated already, those are legitimate ways to split venues). Splitting things along illegitimate lines is harmful for reasons that I stated earlier in this thread.
Mhm, itâs POSSIBLE to talk about it, bias MAY exist, etc, etc. Thereâs still a difference between speculation and argument.
Could you please explain what you are talking about here since I donât see how this is related to what you quote me saying above? Of course, there is a difference between a speculation and argument, and arguments may still include a claim thatâs expressed in a modal way. So I donât really understand how is this challenging what I have said :-/â
different venues are fine, they must simply be split among legitimate lines (like light chat vs serious chat, or different specific causes; as I stated already, those are legitimate ways to split venues). Splitting things along illegitimate lines is harmful for reasons that I stated earlier in this thread.
having a discussion focusing on certain projects rather than others (in view of my suggestion directly to the OP) allows for such a legitimate focus, why not?
Could you please explain what you are talking about here since I donât see how this is related to what you quote me saying above?
The part where I say âitâs POSSIBLE to talk about itâ relates to your claim âwe are able to reflect on multiple meta-issues without engaging in any of the object-related ones and at the same time we can have a genuine interest in reading the object-related issuesâ, and the part where I say âbias MAY existâ relates to your claim âthe fact that measuring bias is difficult doesnât mean bias doesnât exist.â
having a discussion focusing on certain projects rather than others (in view of my suggestion directly to the OP) allows for such a legitimate focus, why not?
Your suggestion to the OP to only host conversation about â[projects that] improve the near futureâ is the same distinction of near-term vs long-term, and therefore is still the wrong way to carve up the issues, for the same reasons I gave earlier.
right, we are able toâdoesnât mean we cannot form arguments. since when did arguments exist only if we can be absolutely certain about something?
as for my suggestion, unfortunately, and as iâve said above, there is a bubble in the EA community concerning the far-future prioritization, which may be overshadowing and repulsive towards some who are interested in other topics. in the ideal context of rational discussion, your points would hold completely. but we are talking here about a very specific context where a number of biases are already entrenched and people tend to be put off by that. your approach alone in this discussion with me is super off-putting and my best guess is that you are behaving like this because you are hiding behind your anonymous identity. i wonder if we talked in person, if youâd be so rude (for examples, see my previous replies to you). i doubt.
since when did arguments exist only if we can be absolutely certain about something?
You donât have to be certain, just substantiated.
there is a bubble in the EA community concerning the far-future prioritization which may be overshadowing and repulsive towards some who are interested in other topics
It may be, or it may not be. Even if so, itâs not healthy to split groups every time people dislike the majority point of view. âItâs a bubble and people are biased and I find it repulsiveâ is practically indistinguishable from âI disagree with them and I canât convince themâ.
we are talking here about a very specific context where a number of biases are already entrenched and people tend to be put off by that
Again, this is unsupported. What biases? Whatâs the evidence? Who is put off? Etc.
my best guess is that you are behaving like this because you are hiding behind your anonymous identity
my IRL identity is linked via the little icon by my username. I donât know whatâs rude here. Iâm saying that you need to engage with on a topic before commenting on the viability of engaging on it. Yet this basic point is being met with appeals to logical fallacies, blank denial of the validity of my argument, insistence upon the mere possibility and plausible deniability of your position. These tactics are irritating and lead to nowhere, so all I can do is restate my points in a slightly different manner and hope that you pick up the general idea. Youâre perceiving that as ârudeâ because itâs terse, but I have no idea what else I can say.
OK, you arenât anonymous, so thatâs even more surprising. I gave you earlier examples of your rude responses, but doesnât matter, Iâm fine going on.
My impression of bias is based by my experience on this forum and observations in view of posts critical of far-future causes. I donât have any systematic study on this topic, so I canât provide you with evidence. It is just my impression, based on my personal experience. But unfortunately, no empirical study on this topic, concerning this forum, exists, so the best we currently have are personal experiences. My experience is based on observations of the presence of larger-than-average downvoting without commenting when criticism on these issues is voiced. Of course, I may be biased and this may be my blind spot.
You started questioning my comments on this topic by stating that I havenât engaged in any near-future discussions so far. And I am replying that i donât need to have done so in order to have an argument concerning the type of venue that would profit from discussions on this topic. I donât even see how I could change my mind on this topic (the good practice when disagreeing) because I donât see why one would engage in a discussion in order to have an opinion on the discussion. Hope thatâs clear by now :)
My experience is based on observations of the presence of larger-than-average downvoting without commenting when criticism on these issues is voiced.
Iâm not referring to that, Iâm questioning whether talking about near-term stuff needs to be anywhere else. This whole thing is not about âwhere can we argue about cause prioritization and the flaws in Open Phil,â it is about âwhere can we argue about bed nets vs cash distributionâ. Those are two different things, and just because a forum is bad for one doesnât imply that itâs bad for the other. You have been conflating these things in this entire conversation.
And I am replying that i donât need to have done so in order to have an argument concerning the type of venue that would profit from discussions on this topic. I donât even see how I could change my mind on this topic (the good practice when disagreeing) because I donât see why one would engage in a discussion in order to have an opinion on the discussion
The basic premise here, that you should have experience with conversations before opining about the viability of having such a conversation, is not easy to communicate with someone who defers to pure skepticism about it. I leave that to the reader to see why itâs a problem that youâre inserting yourself as an authority while lacking demonstrable evidence and expertise.
I have to single out this one quote from you, because I have no idea where you are getting all this fuel from:
But when I look through your comment history, you seem to not be talking about near-future related topics and strategies, youâre just talking about meta stuff, Open Phil, the EA forums, critiques of the EA community, critiques of AI safety, the same old hot topics. Try things out before judging.
Can you please explain what you are suggesting here? How is this conflicting with my interest in near-future related topics? I have a hard time understanding why you are so confrontational. Your last sentence:
Try things out before judging.
is the highest peak of unfriendliness. What should I try exactly before judging?!
I donât know of any less confrontational/âunfriendly way of wording those points. That comment is perfectly civil.
Can you please explain what you are suggesting here? How is this conflicting with my interest in near-future related topics?
It should be clear, no? Itâs hard to judge the viability of talking about X when you havenât talked about X.
What should I try exactly before judging?!
Look, itâs right there in the original commentââtalking about near-future related topics and strategiesâ. I donât know how else I can say this.
Civil can still be unfriendly, but hey, if you arenât getting it, itâs fine.
It should be clear, no? Itâs hard to judge the viability of talking about X when you havenât talked about X.
If it was clear, why would I ask? thereâs your lack of friendliness in action.
And I still donât see the rationale in what you are saying: I can judge that certain topics may profit from being discussed in a certain context A even if I havenât personally engaged in discussing it in that context. The burden of proof is on you: if you want to make an argument, you have to provide more than just a claim. So far, you are just stating something which I currently canât make any sense of.
âtalking about near-future related topics and strategiesâ. I donât know how else I can say this.
Again: why would someone be able to assess the viability of the context in which a certain topic is discussed only if they have engaged in the discussion of that topic? As I said above, this is a non-sequitur, or at least you havenât provided any arguments to support this thesis. I can be in a position to suggest that scientists may profit from exchanging their ideas in a venue A even if I myself havenât exchanged any ideas in A.
And I still donât see the rationale in what you are saying: I can judge that certain topics may profit from being discussed in a certain context A even if I havenât personally engaged in discussing it in that context
Yes, you can, technically, in theory. Iâm recommending that you personally engage before judging it with confidence.
The burden of proof is on you: if you want to make an argument, you have to provide more than just a claim.
This kind of burden-of-proof-shifting is not a good way to approach conversation. Iâve already made my argument.
So far, you are just stating something which I currently canât make any sense of.
What part of it doesnât make sense? I honestly donât see how itâs not clear, so I donât know how to make it clearer.
Again: why would someone be able to assess the viability of the context in which a certain topic is discussed only if they have engaged in the discussion of that topic
They can, Iâm just saying that it will be pretty unreliable.
Iâm recommending that you personally engage before judging it with confidence.
But why would I? I might be fond of reading about certain causes from those who are more knowledgeable about them than I am. My donation strategies may profit from reading such discussions. And yet I may engage there where my expertise lies. This is why i really canât make sense of your recommendation (which was originally an imperative, in fact).
This kind of burden-of-proof-shifting is not a good way to approach conversation. Iâve already made my argument.
I havenât seen any such argument :-/â
What part of it doesnât make sense? I honestly donât see how itâs not clear, so I donât know how to make it clearer.
First, because you seem to be interested in âtalking about near-future related topics and strategiesâ. And second, because it will provide you with firsthand experience on this topic which you are arguing about.
I havenât seen any such argument
In above comments, I write âItâs hard to judge the viability of talking about X when you havenât talked about Xâ, and âIâm not sure what youâre really worried about. At some point you have to accept that no discussion space is perfect, that attempts to replace good ones usually turn out to be worse, and that your time is better spent focusing on the issues. But when I look through your comment history, you seem to not be talking about near-future related topics and strategies, youâre just talking about meta stuff, Open Phil, the EA forums, critiques of the EA community, critiques of AI safety, the same old hot topics. Try things out before judging.â
Like I mentioned above, I may be interested in reading focused discussions on this topic and chipping in when I feel I can add something of value. Reading alone brings a lot on forums/âdiscussion channels.
Moreover, I may assess how newcomers with a special interest in these topics may contribute from such a venue. You reduction of a meta-topic to oneâs personal experience of it is a non-sequitur.
But in many contexts this may not be the case: as Iâve explained, I may profit from reading some discussions which is a kind of engagement. Youâve omitted that part of my response. Or think of philosophers of science discussing the efficiency of scientific research in, say, a specific scientific domain (in which, as philosophers, theyâve never participated). Knowledge-of doesnât necessarily have to be knowledge obtained by an object-level engagement in the given field.
as Iâve explained, I may profit from reading some discussions which is a kind of engagement.
OK, sure. But when I look at conversations about near term issues on this forum I see perfectly good discussion (e.g. http://ââeffective-altruism.com/ââea/ââxo/ââgivewells_charity_recommendations_require_taking/ââ), and nothing that looks bad. And the basic idea that a forum canât talk about a particular cause productively merely because most of them reject that cause (even if they do so for poor reasons) is simply unsubstantiated and hard to believe in the first place, on conceptual grounds.
Or think of philosophers of science discussing the efficiency of scientific research in, say, a specific scientific domain (in which, as philosophers, theyâve never participated).
This kind of talk has a rather mixed track record, actually. (source: Iâve studied economics and read the things that philosophers opine about economic methodology)
Right, and I agree! But hereâs the thing (which I havenât mentioned so far, so maybe it helps): I think some people just donât participate in this forum much. For instance, there is a striking gender imbalance (I think more than 70% on here are men) and while I have absolutely no evidence to correlate this with near/âfar-future issues, I wouldnât be surprised if itâs somewhat related (e.g. there are not so many tech-interested non-males in EA). Again, this is now just a speculation. And perhaps itâs worth a shot to try an environment that will feel safe for those who are put-off by AI-related topics/âinterests/âangles.
I think some people just donât participate in this forum much.
Absofuckinglutely, so letâs not make that problem worse by putting them into their own private Discord. As I said at the start, this is creating the problem that it is trying to solve.
And perhaps itâs worth a shot to try an environment that will feel safe for those who are put-off by AI-related topics/âinterests/âangles.
EA needs to adhere to high standards of intellectual rigor, therefore it canât fracture and make wanton concessions to people who feel emotional aversion to people with a differing point of view. The thesis that our charitable dollars ought to be given to x-risk instead of AMF is so benign and impersonal that it beggars belief that a reasonable person will feel upset or unsafe upon being exposed to widespread opinion in favor of it. Remember that the ânear-term EAsâ have been pushing a thesis that is equally alienating to people outside EA. For years, EAs of all stripes have been saying to stop giving money to museums and universities and baseball teams, that we must follow rational arguments and donate to faraway bed net charities which are mathematically demonstrated to have the greatest impact, and (rightly) expect outsiders to meet these arguments with rigor and seriousness; for some of these EAs to then turn around and object that they feel âunsafeâ, and need a âsafe spaceâ, because there is a âbubbleâ of people who argue from a different point of view on cause prioritization is damningly hypocritical. The whole point of EA is that people are going to tell you that you are wrong about your charitable cause, and you shouldnât set it in protective concrete like faith or identity.
While I largely agree with your idea, I just donât understand why you think that a new space would divide people who anyway arenât on this forum to begin with? Like I said, 70% on here are men. So how are you gonna attract more non-male participants? This topic may be unrelated, but letâs say we find out that the majority of non-males have preferences that would be better align with a different type of venue. Isnât that a good enough reason to initiate it? Why would it that be conflicting, rather than complementary with this forum?
I just donât understand why you think that a new space would divide people who anyway arenât on this forum to begin with
I stated the problems in my original comment.
So how are you gonna attract more non-male participants
The same ways that we attract male participants, but perhaps tailored more towards women.
letâs say we find out that the majority of non-males have preferences that would be better align with a different type of venue. Isnât that a good enough reason to initiate it?
It depends on the âdifferent type of venue.â
Why would it that be conflicting, rather than complementary with this forum?
Because it may entail the problems that I gave in my original comment.
Moderator note: I found this harsher than necessary. I think a few tone changes would have made the whole message feel more constructive.
What statements were âharsher than necessaryâ?
Iâll PM you.
âso it will be a destructive feedback loopâ ~ not necessarily
âyouâre reinforcing an assumption that they canât get alongâ ~ unlikely
âwhenever a group of people [...] extreme end of the spectrum, who are the most closed-minded and intolerantâ ~ very big presumptions
I personally think this chat is a great idea. Too many times on Facebook groups, I have to see local events that I canât attend. Too many times I see EA posts that have no relevance to my involvement in EA. That doesnât mean Iâm closed-minded. Most EAs, picking animal suffering or global poverty, are the most open-minded people in my opinion.
Perhaps think about it like the difference between the Physics Stack Exchange chat and the Electrical Engineering (EE) Stack Exchange chat. Theyâre very close to the same. EE is based in physics obviously. But theyâre separate.
Anyway, my two cents.
All three of those are merely cases of you disagreeing with my claims or my confidence in them. I thought I was being tone-policed, but you are just saying that I am wrong.
The fact that people are unable to attend something is one of the problems with the server that is being promoted here. Iâm not in favor of anything in EA that does this, if someone ever tries to exclude near-term EAs from their event then give me a ping and I will argue with them too!
Theoretical physicists are not upset by the presence of discussion on experimental physics, and the ones who disbelieve in dark matter are not upset by the presence of discussion from people who do. If lots of posts arenât relevant to you, the right answer is presumably to ignore those posts; I and so many other EAs do it all the time, itâs easy.
If you want more content that is relevant to you⊠thatâs perfect! Make it! Request it! Ask questions about it! Be the change that you wish to see in the world.
The physics stack exchange doesnât try to exclude engineers, and they didnât make it because they thought that engineers were âalienatingâ; if they operated on that basis then it would create unnecessary annoyance for everyone. They separate because they are different topics, with different questions that need to be answered, and the skills and education which are relevant to one are very different from those that matter for another. But ânear-term Effective Altruismâ, just like âlong-term Effective Altruismâ, is a poorly specified bundle of positions with no common methodological thread. The common thread within each bundle is not any legitimate underlying presupposition about values or methodology that may form the foundation for further inquiry, it is an ex post facto conclusion that the right cause is something that happens to be short- or long-term. And while some cause conclusions could form a meaningful basis for significant further inquiry (e.g., you selected poverty as a cause, so now you just want to talk about poverty relief), the mere conclusion that the right cause is something that matters in the near or long term does not form any meaningful basis, because there is little in the way of general ideas, tools, resources, or methodologies which matter greatly for one bundle of causes but not the other.
But not only is the original analogy with physics and engineering relevantly incorrect, itâs specifically pernicious, because many EAs already implicitly have the misconception that supporting near-term or long-term causes is a matter of philosophical presupposition or overarching methodology; in fact it is probably the greatest confusion that EAs have about EA and therefore it wouldnât be wise to reinforce it.
@kbog: Most of your responses with respect to my reply do not make sense. Example, EA Chicago posts their events on the Facebook page. I donât live in Chicago...(simple as that)
~ completely missed the point. Additionally, the analogy is fine. There is seldom such a thing as an absolute analogy. With that, it doesnât follow that somehow the analogy is wrong related to these elusively implicit misconceptions by EAs about EAs.
So to sum up, youâre reading in way too far to what I wrote originally. I was answering your question related to why your first reply was âharsher than necessaryâ.
OK, but has nothing to do with whether or not we should have this discord server⊠why bring it up? In the context of your statements, canât you see how much it looks like someone is complaining that there are too many events that only appeal to EAs who support long-term causes, and too few events for EAs who support near-term causes?
Itâs not that the analogy was not absolute, itâs that it was relevantly wrong for the topic of discussion. But given that your argument doesnât seem to be what I thought it was, thatâs fine, it could very well be relevant for your point.
I figured that âharshâ refers to tone. If I insult you, or try to make you feel bad, or inject vicious sarcasm, then Iâm being harsh. You didnât talk about anything along those lines, but you did seem to be disputing my claims about the viability of the OP, so I took it to be a defense of having this new discord server. If youâre not talking on either of those issues then I donât know what your point is.
They were examples to how I saw how your post as âharsher than necessaryâ. Youâve diluted these mere examples into a frivolous debate. If you believe you were not harsh at all, then believe what you want to believe.
As I stated already, âharshâ is a question of tone, and you clearly werenât talking about my tone. So I have no clue what your position is or what you were trying to accomplish by providing your examples. Thereâs nothing I can do in the absence of clarification.
Diction and pronouns have tone (e.g., âyouâre reinforcingâ vs a more modest âthat could reinforceâ). With that, expressing certainty, about predictions (e.g., âwhenever a group of peopleâ) is another way I saw the original comment as harshâunless youâre an expert in the field (and a relevant study would help too). I, for one, am no anthropologist nor sociologist.
Iâm not debating if here. You asked how, and I quoted the statements I saw as the most harsh + most questionable. [Iâm trying to say this lightly. Instead I could have made that last bit, â
furthest from the truthâ. But I didnât, because Iâm trying to demonstrate. (And thatâs not what I really mean anyway.)] I never said you are wrong about _ _ _ _ _. I said, it may not be true; it may be true.
You seem to still think the original comment was not harsher than necessary by your own definition of tone. Either way, Iâm guessing Mrs. Wise gave you much less confusing pointers with her PM.
Hi Kbog, I see your point concerning near/âfar-future ideas in principle. However, if you look at the practical execution of these ideas, things arenât following your lines of reasoning (unfortunately, of course). For instance, the community practices related to far-future focus (in particular AI-risks) have adopted the assessment of scientific research and the funding thereof, which I find lacking scientific rigor, transparency and overall validity (to the point that it makes no sense to speak of âeffectiveâ charity). Moreover, there is a large consensus about such evaluative practices: they are assumed as valid by OpenPhil and the EAF, and even when I tried to exchange arguments with both of these institutions, nothing has ever changed (Iâve never even managed to push them into a public dialogue on this topic). I see this problem as a potential danger for the EA community in whole (just think of the press getting their hands on this problem and arguing that EAs finance scientific research which is assumed effective, where it is unclear according to which criteria it would count as such; similarly for newcomers). In view of this, I think dividing these practices would be a great idea. The fact they are connected to âfar-future EAâ is secondary to me, and it is unfortunate that far-future ideas turned into a bubble of its own, closed towards criticism questioning the core of their EA methodology.
That said, I agree with some of your worries (see my other comment here).
Well the main point of my comment is that people should not reinforce wrong practices by institutionalizing them.
What is it when money goes to Givewell or Animal Charity Evaluators? Funding scientific research. Donât poverty interventions need research? Animal advocacy campaigns? Plant-based meat? Is it only the futurists who are doing everything wrong when numerous complaints have been lodged at the research quality of Givewell and ACE?
Well I havenât claimed that the evaluation of futurist scientific research is rigorous, transparent or valid. I think you should make a compelling argument for that in a serious post. Telling us that you failed to persuade groups such as Open Phil and the EAF doesnât exactly show us that you are right.
Note: itâs particularly instructive here, as we evaluate the utility of the sort of segregation proposed by the OP, how the idea that EA ought to be split along these lines is bundled with the assertion that the Other Side is doing things âwrongâ; we can see that the nominally innocuous proposal for categorization is operationalized to effect the general discrediting of those with an opposing point of view, which is exactly why it is a bad thing.
Just think of the press reporting on us doing exactly the same thing as everyone else in science? If you are worried about bad press, the #1 thing you should avoid is trying to kick up the social divisions that would give them something actually juicy to report on.
Where is this criticism? Where are the arguments on cause prioritization? Where is the review of the relevant academic literature? Where is the quantitative modeling? I see people complain that their âcriticismsâ arenât being met, but when I look for these criticisms, the search for the original source bottoms out either in sparse lines of assertions in web comments, or quite old arguments that have already been accepted and answered, and in either case opponents are clearly ready and willing to engage with such criticism. The claim that people are âclosed towards criticismâ invariably turns out to be nothing but the fact that the complainant failed to change anyoneâs mind, but seldom does the complainant question whether they are right at all.
wow, you really seem annoyed⊠didnât expect such a pissed post, but i suppose you got really annoyed by this thread or something. I provided the arguments in detail concerning OpenPhilâs practices in a post from few months ago here: http://ââeffective-altruism.com/ââea/ââ1l6/ââhow_effective_and_efficient_is_the_funding_policy/ââ.
I have a few paper deadlines these days, so as much as I wish to respond with all the references, arguments, etc. I donât have the time. I plan on writing a post concerning EAFâs funding policy as well, where Iâll sum it up in a similar way as I did for OpenPhil.
That said, I donât think we shouldnât criticize the research done by near-future organizations, to the contrary. And I completely agree: itâd be great to have a forum devoted only to research practices and funding thereof. But concerning far-future funding, research is the only thing that can be funded, which makes it particularly troublesome.
Err, no. Funding by academic institutions follows a whole set of criteria (take the ERC scheme, for instance), which can of course be discussed on their own, but they aim at efficient and effective research. The funding of AI-risk related projects follows⊠well, nobody could ever specify to me any criteria to begin with, except âan anonymous reviewer whom we trust likes the projectâ or âthey seem to have many great publicationsâ, which once looked at donât really exist. Thatâs as far from academic procedures as it gets.
I assumed your post to be more of a nominal attempt to disagree with me than it really was, so the failure of some of its statements to constitute specific rebuttals of my points became irritating. Iâve edited my comment to be cleaner. I apologize for that.
Okay, and if we look at that post, we see some pretty complete and civil responses to your arguments. Seems like things are Working As Intended. I am responding some of your claims in that thread so that it gets collected in the right place. But going back to the conversation here, you seem to be pretty clear that it is possible to have effective and efficient science funding, even if Open Phil isnât doing it right. Plus, youâre only referring to Open Phil/âEAF, not everyone else who supports long term causes. So clearly it would be inappropriate for long term EA causes to be separated.
We can push for political change at the national or international level, we can grow the EA movement, or do animal advocacy. Those are known and viable far-future cause areas, even if they donât get as much attention under that guise.
No worries! Thanks for that, and yes, I agree pretty much with everything you say here. As for the discussion on far-future funding, it did start in the comments on my post, but it led nowhere near practical changes, in terms of transparency of proposed criteria used for the assessment of funded projects. Iâll try to write a separate, more general post on that.
My only point was that due to the high presence of âfar-future biasâ on this forum (I might be wrong, but much of downvoting-without-commenting seems to be at least a tendency towards biased outlooks) itâs nice to have some chats on more near-future related topics and strategies for promoting those goals. I see a chat channel more as a complementary venue to this forum than as an alternative.
Itâs extremely hard to identify bias without proper measurement/âquantification, because you need to separate it from actual differences in the strength of peopleâs arguments, as well as legitimate expression of a majority point of view, and your own bias. In any case, you are not going to get downvoted for talking about how to reduce poverty. Iâm not sure what youâre really worried about. At some point you have to accept that no discussion space is perfect, that attempts to replace good ones usually turn out to be worse, and that your time is better spent focusing on the issues. But when I look through your comment history, you seem to not be talking about near-future related topics and strategies, youâre just talking about meta stuff, Open Phil, the EA forums, critiques of the EA community, critiques of AI safety, the same old hot topics. Try things out before judging.
First, I disagree with your imperatives concerning what one should do before engaging in criticism. Thatâs a non-sequitur: we are able to reflect on multiple meta-issues without engaging in any of the object-related ones and at the same time we can have a genuine interest in reading the object-related issues. I am genuinely interested in reading about near-future improvement topics, while being genuinely interested in voicing opinion on all kinds of meta issues, especially those that are closely related to my own research topics.
Second, the fact that measuring bias is difficult doesnât mean bias doesnât exist.
Third, to use your phrase, I am not sure what you are really worried about: having different types of venues for discussion doesnât seem harmful especially if they concern different focus groups.
Mhm, itâs POSSIBLE to talk about it, bias MAY exist, etc, etc. Thereâs still a difference between speculation and argument.
different venues are fine, they must simply be split among legitimate lines (like light chat vs serious chat, or different specific causes; as I stated already, those are legitimate ways to split venues). Splitting things along illegitimate lines is harmful for reasons that I stated earlier in this thread.
Could you please explain what you are talking about here since I donât see how this is related to what you quote me saying above? Of course, there is a difference between a speculation and argument, and arguments may still include a claim thatâs expressed in a modal way. So I donât really understand how is this challenging what I have said :-/â
having a discussion focusing on certain projects rather than others (in view of my suggestion directly to the OP) allows for such a legitimate focus, why not?
The part where I say âitâs POSSIBLE to talk about itâ relates to your claim âwe are able to reflect on multiple meta-issues without engaging in any of the object-related ones and at the same time we can have a genuine interest in reading the object-related issuesâ, and the part where I say âbias MAY existâ relates to your claim âthe fact that measuring bias is difficult doesnât mean bias doesnât exist.â
Your suggestion to the OP to only host conversation about â[projects that] improve the near futureâ is the same distinction of near-term vs long-term, and therefore is still the wrong way to carve up the issues, for the same reasons I gave earlier.
right, we are able toâdoesnât mean we cannot form arguments. since when did arguments exist only if we can be absolutely certain about something?
as for my suggestion, unfortunately, and as iâve said above, there is a bubble in the EA community concerning the far-future prioritization, which may be overshadowing and repulsive towards some who are interested in other topics. in the ideal context of rational discussion, your points would hold completely. but we are talking here about a very specific context where a number of biases are already entrenched and people tend to be put off by that. your approach alone in this discussion with me is super off-putting and my best guess is that you are behaving like this because you are hiding behind your anonymous identity. i wonder if we talked in person, if youâd be so rude (for examples, see my previous replies to you). i doubt.
But theyâll be unsubstantiated.
You donât have to be certain, just substantiated.
It may be, or it may not be. Even if so, itâs not healthy to split groups every time people dislike the majority point of view. âItâs a bubble and people are biased and I find it repulsiveâ is practically indistinguishable from âI disagree with them and I canât convince themâ.
Again, this is unsupported. What biases? Whatâs the evidence? Who is put off? Etc.
my IRL identity is linked via the little icon by my username. I donât know whatâs rude here. Iâm saying that you need to engage with on a topic before commenting on the viability of engaging on it. Yet this basic point is being met with appeals to logical fallacies, blank denial of the validity of my argument, insistence upon the mere possibility and plausible deniability of your position. These tactics are irritating and lead to nowhere, so all I can do is restate my points in a slightly different manner and hope that you pick up the general idea. Youâre perceiving that as ârudeâ because itâs terse, but I have no idea what else I can say.
OK, you arenât anonymous, so thatâs even more surprising. I gave you earlier examples of your rude responses, but doesnât matter, Iâm fine going on.
My impression of bias is based by my experience on this forum and observations in view of posts critical of far-future causes. I donât have any systematic study on this topic, so I canât provide you with evidence. It is just my impression, based on my personal experience. But unfortunately, no empirical study on this topic, concerning this forum, exists, so the best we currently have are personal experiences. My experience is based on observations of the presence of larger-than-average downvoting without commenting when criticism on these issues is voiced. Of course, I may be biased and this may be my blind spot.
You started questioning my comments on this topic by stating that I havenât engaged in any near-future discussions so far. And I am replying that i donât need to have done so in order to have an argument concerning the type of venue that would profit from discussions on this topic. I donât even see how I could change my mind on this topic (the good practice when disagreeing) because I donât see why one would engage in a discussion in order to have an opinion on the discussion. Hope thatâs clear by now :)
Iâm not referring to that, Iâm questioning whether talking about near-term stuff needs to be anywhere else. This whole thing is not about âwhere can we argue about cause prioritization and the flaws in Open Phil,â it is about âwhere can we argue about bed nets vs cash distributionâ. Those are two different things, and just because a forum is bad for one doesnât imply that itâs bad for the other. You have been conflating these things in this entire conversation.
The basic premise here, that you should have experience with conversations before opining about the viability of having such a conversation, is not easy to communicate with someone who defers to pure skepticism about it. I leave that to the reader to see why itâs a problem that youâre inserting yourself as an authority while lacking demonstrable evidence and expertise.
I have to single out this one quote from you, because I have no idea where you are getting all this fuel from:
Can you please explain what you are suggesting here? How is this conflicting with my interest in near-future related topics? I have a hard time understanding why you are so confrontational. Your last sentence:
is the highest peak of unfriendliness. What should I try exactly before judging?!
I donât know of any less confrontational/âunfriendly way of wording those points. That comment is perfectly civil.
It should be clear, no? Itâs hard to judge the viability of talking about X when you havenât talked about X.
Look, itâs right there in the original commentââtalking about near-future related topics and strategiesâ. I donât know how else I can say this.
Civil can still be unfriendly, but hey, if you arenât getting it, itâs fine.
If it was clear, why would I ask? thereâs your lack of friendliness in action. And I still donât see the rationale in what you are saying: I can judge that certain topics may profit from being discussed in a certain context A even if I havenât personally engaged in discussing it in that context. The burden of proof is on you: if you want to make an argument, you have to provide more than just a claim. So far, you are just stating something which I currently canât make any sense of.
Again: why would someone be able to assess the viability of the context in which a certain topic is discussed only if they have engaged in the discussion of that topic? As I said above, this is a non-sequitur, or at least you havenât provided any arguments to support this thesis. I can be in a position to suggest that scientists may profit from exchanging their ideas in a venue A even if I myself havenât exchanged any ideas in A.
Yes, you can, technically, in theory. Iâm recommending that you personally engage before judging it with confidence.
This kind of burden-of-proof-shifting is not a good way to approach conversation. Iâve already made my argument.
What part of it doesnât make sense? I honestly donât see how itâs not clear, so I donât know how to make it clearer.
They can, Iâm just saying that it will be pretty unreliable.
But why would I? I might be fond of reading about certain causes from those who are more knowledgeable about them than I am. My donation strategies may profit from reading such discussions. And yet I may engage there where my expertise lies. This is why i really canât make sense of your recommendation (which was originally an imperative, in fact).
I havenât seen any such argument :-/â
See above.
First, because you seem to be interested in âtalking about near-future related topics and strategiesâ. And second, because it will provide you with firsthand experience on this topic which you are arguing about.
In above comments, I write âItâs hard to judge the viability of talking about X when you havenât talked about Xâ, and âIâm not sure what youâre really worried about. At some point you have to accept that no discussion space is perfect, that attempts to replace good ones usually turn out to be worse, and that your time is better spent focusing on the issues. But when I look through your comment history, you seem to not be talking about near-future related topics and strategies, youâre just talking about meta stuff, Open Phil, the EA forums, critiques of the EA community, critiques of AI safety, the same old hot topics. Try things out before judging.â
Like I mentioned above, I may be interested in reading focused discussions on this topic and chipping in when I feel I can add something of value. Reading alone brings a lot on forums/âdiscussion channels.
Moreover, I may assess how newcomers with a special interest in these topics may contribute from such a venue. You reduction of a meta-topic to oneâs personal experience of it is a non-sequitur.
I didnât reduce it. I only claim that it requires personal experience as a significant part of the picture.
But in many contexts this may not be the case: as Iâve explained, I may profit from reading some discussions which is a kind of engagement. Youâve omitted that part of my response. Or think of philosophers of science discussing the efficiency of scientific research in, say, a specific scientific domain (in which, as philosophers, theyâve never participated). Knowledge-of doesnât necessarily have to be knowledge obtained by an object-level engagement in the given field.
OK, sure. But when I look at conversations about near term issues on this forum I see perfectly good discussion (e.g. http://ââeffective-altruism.com/ââea/ââxo/ââgivewells_charity_recommendations_require_taking/ââ), and nothing that looks bad. And the basic idea that a forum canât talk about a particular cause productively merely because most of them reject that cause (even if they do so for poor reasons) is simply unsubstantiated and hard to believe in the first place, on conceptual grounds.
This kind of talk has a rather mixed track record, actually. (source: Iâve studied economics and read the things that philosophers opine about economic methodology)
Right, and I agree! But hereâs the thing (which I havenât mentioned so far, so maybe it helps): I think some people just donât participate in this forum much. For instance, there is a striking gender imbalance (I think more than 70% on here are men) and while I have absolutely no evidence to correlate this with near/âfar-future issues, I wouldnât be surprised if itâs somewhat related (e.g. there are not so many tech-interested non-males in EA). Again, this is now just a speculation. And perhaps itâs worth a shot to try an environment that will feel safe for those who are put-off by AI-related topics/âinterests/âangles.
Absofuckinglutely, so letâs not make that problem worse by putting them into their own private Discord. As I said at the start, this is creating the problem that it is trying to solve.
EA needs to adhere to high standards of intellectual rigor, therefore it canât fracture and make wanton concessions to people who feel emotional aversion to people with a differing point of view. The thesis that our charitable dollars ought to be given to x-risk instead of AMF is so benign and impersonal that it beggars belief that a reasonable person will feel upset or unsafe upon being exposed to widespread opinion in favor of it. Remember that the ânear-term EAsâ have been pushing a thesis that is equally alienating to people outside EA. For years, EAs of all stripes have been saying to stop giving money to museums and universities and baseball teams, that we must follow rational arguments and donate to faraway bed net charities which are mathematically demonstrated to have the greatest impact, and (rightly) expect outsiders to meet these arguments with rigor and seriousness; for some of these EAs to then turn around and object that they feel âunsafeâ, and need a âsafe spaceâ, because there is a âbubbleâ of people who argue from a different point of view on cause prioritization is damningly hypocritical. The whole point of EA is that people are going to tell you that you are wrong about your charitable cause, and you shouldnât set it in protective concrete like faith or identity.
While I largely agree with your idea, I just donât understand why you think that a new space would divide people who anyway arenât on this forum to begin with? Like I said, 70% on here are men. So how are you gonna attract more non-male participants? This topic may be unrelated, but letâs say we find out that the majority of non-males have preferences that would be better align with a different type of venue. Isnât that a good enough reason to initiate it? Why would it that be conflicting, rather than complementary with this forum?
I stated the problems in my original comment.
The same ways that we attract male participants, but perhaps tailored more towards women.
It depends on the âdifferent type of venue.â
Because it may entail the problems that I gave in my original comment.