Aren’t you going further from the definition though?
Any short definition about EA by itself I find to be abstract. Most people I encounter assume it’s about doing as much good small things as possible—or worse that it’s a political philosophy (red/blue thinking). It’s only when I give examples of myself or ask what their cause interests could be that they slowly break away from the abstract dictionary definitions.
I do not mean “the reason” can change—I just do not think you can reduce someone’s worldview, Weltanschauung, into one simple reason (unless maybe for #6).
Regardless, I don’t think a survey here would be representative anyway.
Sorry, I cannot choose one. Reasons change. There was never a be-all end-all reason for me.
(Also, a few of these are justifications instead of actual reasons.)
For lack of a better* English word, vicissitude (natural change visible in nature or in human affairs) comes closest to why I refuse to choose “the reason.” It doesn’t truly exist ;)
*Vicissitude usually has a negative connotation.
1 ≡ 8 ∴ 9.
I’m glad you said so. From now on I’ll use well-meaning/ good intentions, and evidence-based good instead.
Thanks. This will be useful for a future presentation. Although, I am going to modify challenges 3-6. Using the word “utilitarian” seems...limiting. EA has utilitarian/consequentialist underpinnings—but not a full blown subscription to only that moral system (i.e., not exclusive). But I’m sure you knew that already. (See Macaskill’s comment on ‘Effective Altruism’ as utilitarian equivocation.)
Off the top of my head, I’m thinking something more along the lines as maximizing impact and the empathy-altruism hypothesis related to meaning well (benevolence) versus actually doing good (beneficence). (Additionally, going to add an outline =)
Also, the slide about Effective Altruism as a movement, founded in 2011? I’m guessing that’s for 80k Hours because GWWC has been around since 2009, and the main idea has been around since at least 1972.
Side note—Have you looked at the Wikipedia pages for Effective Altruism in different languages and translated to [English]?
Examples, sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effektiv_altruism ~ marginal impact, opartic thinking, contraceptive thinking. Es.wikipedia.org ~ comparative wealth, etc.
Just something someone here may find interesting.
Eventually, though, I worked out a diet plan that would be both healthy and easy to follow.
Related—Hey vegans, what are the easiest (least prep) three-per-day meal plan for a week?
I am not trying to “win” anything. I am stating why MIRI is not transparent, and does not deal in scalable issues. As an individual, Earning to Give, it does not follow to fund such things under the guise of Effective Altruism. Existential risk is important to think about and discuss as individuals. However, funding CS grad students does not make sense in the light of Effective Altruism.
Funding does not increase “thinking.” The whole point of EA is to not give blindly. For example, giving food aid, although meaning well, can have a very negative effect (i.e., the crowding out effect on the local market). Nonmaleficence should be one’s initial position in regards to funding.
Lastly, no I rarely accept something as true first. I do not first accept the null hypothesis. “But there’s a whole load of arguments about why it is a tractable field”—What are they? Again, none of the actual arguments were examined: How is MIRI going about tractable/solvable issues? Who of MIRI is getting the funds? How is time travel safety not as relevant as AI safety?
Please know, I am not being critical, just genuinely curious.
“We expect to have a particular emphasis on funding groups aiming to transition from being run by volunteers to being run by full-time, paid organizers.” Why? What more can a paid organizer do?
I’m thinking about myself, and I don’t see how paying me would significantly increase my time related to EA advocacy. For example, I plan to put up college student tailored posters in the academic buildings. After that, speaking to several large lecture halls before class starts (given permission from each prof). Although, in retrospect, I am more of an average joe EA (E2G on the brink of going from the GWWC 1% student minimum to the professional donation, 10%, and investing the rest).
$5k for renting out a facility? $100k for a group for what? A bigger facility? Or is it more like those fancy $500-a-plate dinners? Is there an EA organizer who’s put on a benefit-type dinner before? I mean, I presume that putting on such events need money to start with...
Please, what AIA organizations? MIRI? And do not worry about offending me. I do not intend to offend. If I do/did though my tone or however, I am sorry.
That being said, I wish you would’ve examined the actual claims I presented. I did not claim AI researchers are worried about a malevolent AI. I am not against researchers; research in robotics, industrial PLCs, nanotech, whatever—are fields in their own right. It is donating my income, as an individual that I take offense. People can fund whatever they want: A new planetary wing at a museum, research in robotics, research in CS, research in CS philosophy.
Although, Earning to Give does not follow. Thinking about and discussing the risks of strong AI does make sense, and we both seem to agree it is important. The CS grad students being supported, however, what makes them different from a random CS grad? Just because they claim to be researching AIA? Following the money, there is not a clear answer on which CS grad students are receiving it. Low or zero transparency. MIRI or no? Am I missing some public information?
Second, what do you define as advanced AI? Before, I said strong AI. Is that what you mean? Is there some sort of AI in between? I’m not aware. This is crucially where I split with AI safety. The theory is an idea of a belief about the far future. To claim that we’re close to developing strong AI is unfounded to me. What in this century is so close to strong AI? Neural networks do not seem to be (from my light research).
I do not believe climate change is as simple to define a “before” and “after.” Perhaps a large rogue solar flair or the Yellowstone supervolcano. Or perhaps even a time travel analogy would suffice ~ time travel safety research. There is no tractability/solvability. [Blank] cannot be defined because it doesn’t exist; unfounded and unknown phenomena cannot be solved. Climate change exists. It is a very real reality. It has solvability. A belief in an idea about the future is a poor reason for claiming some sort of tractability for funding. Strong AI safety (singularity safety) has “solvability” for thinking about and discussing—but, again, it does not follow that one should give monetarily. I feel like I’m beating a dead horse with this point.
For the book recommendation, I looked into it. I’d rather read about morality/ethics directly or further delve into better learning Java, Python, Logix5000, LabVIEW, etc.
@Matthew_Barnett As a senior electrical engineering student, proficient in a variety of programming languages, I do think and believe that AI is important to think about and discuss. The theoretical threat of a malevolent strong AI would be immense. But that does not mean one has cause or a valid reason to support CS grad students financially.
A large, significant, asteroid collision with Earth would also be quite devastating. Yet, to fund and support aerospace grads does not follow. Perhaps I really mean this: AI safety is an Earning to Give non sequitur.
Lastly, again, there is no evidence or results. Effective Altruism is about being beneficent instead of merely benevolent (meaning well). In other words, making decisions off well researched initiatives (e.g., bed nets). Since strong AI does not exist, it does not make sense to support though E2G. (I’m not saying it will never exist; that is unknown.) Of course, there are medium-term (systematic change) with results that more or less rely on historical-type empiricism—but that’s still some type of evidence. For poverty we have RCTs and developmental economics. For AI safety [something?]. For animal suffering we have proof that less miserable conditions can become a reality.
The lists were interesting on how they allude to the different psychology and motivations each EA has between the two camps. I hope someday I can have a civil discussion with someone not directly benefiting from AIA (such as being involved in the research). Aside, I have a friend who’s crazy about futurism, 2045 Initiative/propaganda, and in love with everything Musk says on Twitter.
“The idea of ‘helping the worst off’ is appealing.” Why wouldn’t it be? Copenhagen Consensus.
“Their reaction when they look about extinction risk or AI safety is nonsensical”, imaginary and completely unknown—zero tractability. No evidence to go off of since such technology does not exist. Why give to CS grad students? It’s like trying to fund a mission to Mars, not priority. It’s like funding time travel safety research, non sequitur.
“They are generally an unhappy person.” I just had to laugh and compare how one interested in AI safety matched up. A neo-Freudian Jung/MBTI type of deal. Almost like zodiac signs. Although, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is rigorous—so who am I to judge this informal inventory.
Anyway, I simply do not see that individual action or donation to AIA research has measurable outcomes. We’re talking about Strong AI here—it doesn’t even exist! Not that it couldn’t though. In the future, even the medium-term future, general standards of living could be significantly improved. Synthetic meat on a production scale is a much more realistic research area (or even anti-malaria mosquitoes) instead of making a fuss about imaginary-theoretical events. We’re at a unique sliver in time where it is extremely practical to help lessen the suffering of humans and animals in the near and medium-term future. (I.e., we have rapid transportation and instant information transfer.)
There seems to be some confusion about scale—from importance—in regard to neglectedness (ITN). One should also consider how pervasive the medical condition is in the world. How common is it? Is it a very rare medical condition? Does it affect a certain cohort? Just something to keep in mind.
Related
Reg-charity.org “Prioritising causes”
80,000 Hours “Accessing Importance”
PS ~ When describing EA to others, a big question is, “What is ‘effective’ charity?” A common misunderstanding is mistaking ‘effective’ charities to be preordained or forced. As any EA knows, evaluation is key. Better understanding will come when using complementary diction, such as “scale” and “solvability” (see at least the first link above).
I’m interpreting what your saying as one going without insurance, and having an arrangement with a much wealthier individual (friend) to cover them in case of an accident or medical procedure. If so, I believe that’s ineffective altruism—even if the benefactor is E2G—and too idealistic.
Now, I assume most university students have their parents pay for their insurance (or get it significantly reduced though a state or university program). And I assume most professionals E2G are working for a company with a health insurance plan.
With that in mind, I think it wouldn’t be worth it to start an EA insurance program. There wouldn’t be enough people. And I don’t believe the wealthier individuals would be inclined to doll out routine medical tests and high cost surgery to the less wealthy participants just because they claim to be EA.
I am speaking as someone who does not have an EA meetup/club nearby. I assume you’re talking as if one does have comfy surroundings and support of nearby EAs (read: close EA friends).
Lastly, if I became a high-payed CEO or whatever, I wouldn’t be supporting friends in place of them having an insurance program. To assume that other EAs would is unrealistic. Why do their wealthy lives matter more than someone else’s in a different place? Each dollar of benevolence towards such a friend is a dollar not going to help someone at the other end. Money is mutually exclusive.
Charity Navigator already exists. GuideStar too. If people would just use those, it would be better than something like 2⁄3 of Americans not looking into the causes they support. If an American is so set on rich country charities, just mentioning or encouraging those tools would be enough.
An American charity evaluator would have to compete with the charity ranking sites too. I don’t think it would get off the ground very easily.
I also don’t think it would be associated with Effective Altruism. Doesn’t make sense if it’s just based on location.
Of the three Black Mirror episodes I’ve seen, this reminds me of Nosedive: https://youtu.be/YrpK90bHO2U
I’m not saying such a program would succumb to such a weird state in our culture. Just a fun little aside. Regardless, I think if the EA insurance program happened, it would be awesome! That goes to say, there’s a lot of different ideas in this article. I don’t think our emerging movement is big enough...even for an insurance program. What do I know about starting an insurance firm? Nada.
Although, I do not trust people solely concerned about AI safety ;)
So you don’t want to raise your kids so that they can achieve their highest potential? Or if you’re training for a 5K/half-marathon, and you don’t want to make the best use of your time training? You don’t want to get your maximal PR? I digress.
I do not believe in all the ideas, especially about MIRI (AI risk). Although, in my mind, EA is just getting the biggest bang for your buck. Donating is huge! And organizations, such as GiveWell, are just tools. Sure, I could scour GuideStar and evaluate and compare 990 forms—but why go though all the hassle?
Anyway, honestly it doesn’t really matter that people call themselves “effective altruists.” And the philosophical underpinnings—which are built to be utilitarian independent—seem after the fact. “Effective Altruism” is just a label really; so we can be on the same general page: Effective Altruism has Five Serious Flaws—Avoid It—Be a DIY Philanthropist Instead
There’s some statistic out there that says two-thirds or something of donors do no research at all into the organizations they give to. I hope that some people just wouldn’t give at all ~ nonmalfeasance.
I don’t think it’s something that can be defined. An experience is unique. The outcome is unknown. Sure, you could come up with some general ideas:
activist networking (potential EAs ~ i.e., guiding an altruistic person into being effective—or at least pondering the core question: How to do the most good?) opposed to getting someone who hasn’t volunteered a day in their life
the power of a positive role models
general methods or how to approach new things or refining work ethic, such as always finding work to do—even if it’s cleaning, preparing or planning the next task
unknown “career capital” (e.g., learning how to use power tools which will greatly improve my chance of gaining an electrical engineering internship at a power tool company years later)
unknown unknown
That is why, I simply like to use Experience. It’s multidimensional—not fit for a spreadsheet. Although, there are different types of volunteer positions too. I’m really only discussing unskilled volunteer opportunities. They’re usually not a formal “position” per se.
On the other hand, skilled volunteer opportunities require more time. And that’s where I lose the scent of the trail. I’m just a college student.
I personally believe that just making money “paid work or skill-building” would outweigh local volunteering here in the States (unless living in a major city). But I’m not acknowledging the fact that just convincing one person (such during a local volunteering opportunity) to become an EA would make much more of an impact. But then again that’s unknown—a second unknown. Not only is the Experience itself unknown; it’s unknown who I can convince (what I like to think of as “convert” ~ a lifestyle change in my mind).
I’ve never been able to convince a friend, family or classmate about EA. That’s why all I really think these days is about informing people about the suffering of chickens within our borders and of absolute poverty abroad. Marginal efforts, yet worthy of mention. Something worth the breath rather than complaining about professors ;)
And putting up posters! around campus specifically geared towards university students. Seems to me, page 67, that Solomon makes a good point about using more pathos than logos: Singer And His Critics (1999).
Here in Wisconsin, unless you’re living in Milwaukee or Madison, there are few genuine volunteer opportunities. Sure, one can mow the lawn of a church or dust shelves at the local library—but non-altruistic activities usually outweigh the free grunt labor.
I used to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. I considered each time there genuine. I helped with three houses over three summers (age 15 16 17--before they had an age requirement). Hammering nails, putting up siding, painting, etc. At age 22, after taking the student GWWC pledge and becoming vegetarian, I decided I could still volunteer locally for Habitat. EAs can still volunteer locally. Even if, I believe, the greater more important struggle is lessening absolute poverty. And so I volunteered, twice for a fourth summer. For the experience (or the misnomer “self care”).
Although, in my hometown, Habitat changed. They now get the workers of large companies (and the company pays for their time). I still pounded some nails, moving though the rafters like a monkey; a few other odd jobs too—but I really wasn’t needed anymore.
Even before, not every weekend was there a bunch of work to do, and one could always clean up the site and do prep work for the next phase. But today (for the Habitat in my hometown) it’s different. They have a large pool of workers. I was “extra.” And everyone else was getting paid!
In the end, the picture isn’t that bleak. There is always an opportunity to do good. It just won’t be formally defined or published. Informally, one can post on Craigslist to shovel snow for elderly or disabled people. Or ask a librarian to put up EA posters. And that’s where I’m at right now. I’m looking for EA posters specifically for university students (to put up in academic buildings). Audience targeting is crucial.
This is good for freshman or sophomores, but not upperclassmen: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwwvTgW1FiT_a3BaakZhQ19Yb3VpLVpLUUxuU3F1U2tRZk5B/view But no pictures!
Banners here don’t give enough information, no web links: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B23EuZlq6yJ1UkY4NEdxRDl6X2c
All the rest are brochures, having too much information for a large poster: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B6GSBBEzLsorR2E4elVPa2p6VkU
Following a preference utilitarian system, you are correct. Hare discusses this in, Why I Am only a Demi-vegetarian. Singer also mention it in, Singer and His Critics.
Although, that’s not the reality today (in the US at least). Unethical living conditions, such at battery cages for chickens or a short life confined to small pens for other livestock is the point. No such being wants to suffer unnecessarily. On the other hand, if factory farming was like ol’ MacDonald farm, then sure. Kind of a paradox...