https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/G5TwJ9BGxcgh5DsmQ/yes-requires-the-possibility-of-no
AnonymousTurtle
Karma: 1,297
Interesting. Could you point to anyone in EA who does not agree with the additive view and works in this field?
I agree with you, as do most people outside of EA, but I believe almost everyone in EA working on these topics disagrees
simulating the same wonderful experience a billion times certainly isn’t a billion times greater than simulating it once
My sense is that most people in EA working on these topics disagree.
See also https://www.alignmentforum.org/w/super-beneficiaries which seems really similar to this post
Google Docs natively supports exporting, importing, copying and pasting as Markdown
Use Markdown in Google Docs, Slides, & Drawings—Google Docs Editors Help https://support.google.com/docs/answer/12014036?hl=en#zippy=%2Cexport-a-google-doc-as-markdown
I think many people following effective altruism principles are focusing on politics, but don’t write it in places like the EA forum, because the EA brand is toxic in many circles, and/or has a significant chance of becoming toxic in the future.
While both are rich by global standards, someone in the top 10% ($20k/year) and someone in the top 1% (>$60k/year) have very different abilities to donate.
This becomes even more noticeable as relatively less rich people also often have to support their families, pay off debts, and can’t rely on a future inheritance.
ETA: One org used to ask something like: “if you earned $50k, how much would you donate and why?” which imho mitigates this (although not perfectly)
Do you have a sense of how important Hanania’s support was for the post going viral?
It would make me update on the value of being more iclusive towards people who have very different beliefs which seem incompatible with altruism.
And the amount spent in ads, I think X ads to promote EAG might be a new thing
I think using an anonymous account helps a bit with that, especially when writing praise feels cringy
I probably need to stop saying that AI hasn’t passed the Turing test yet then. I guess it has!
By that definition, ELIZA would have passed the Turing test in 1966
But I do really like that these researchers have put the test online for people to try!
Thanks for sharing, it’s an interesting experience.
As you mention for now it’s really easy to tell humans and AIs apart, but I found it surprisingly hard to convince people I was human.
I think a main argument related to that perspective is that you shouldn’t tax wealth but you should tax consumption (holding billions in stocks and bonds has positive externalities, buying a yacht fleet has negative externalities)
I obviously don’t agree with it, so I’m likely not presenting the strongest version of the arguments, but you can see an example of people holding this view in the twitter screenshot above, and I think it’s not uncommon
Yes that’s a fair point. Do you think the claim itself is false?
I was under the impression that many YMBY/Abundance/Progress Studies-minded EA communities were operating with that theory of change, am I wrong?
Thanks for replying with data. I think what matters for EA fundraising strategy is the relative share of wealth in the top 0.1% and in the top 1% (or maybe top 10%), it’s great that the share of wealth in the bottom 50% is increasing, but I don’t expect many there to be significant donors (with important but rare exceptions).
It’s also not clear to me how liquid is the wealth in social insurance programs, I don’t expect it to be a viable source of donations/influence/impact (but of course it’s great that more people are covered by insurance)
I also think that I was mistaken to mention “the last decades”, as “the last 5-10 years” seems a more relevant time frame for changes in EA strategy.
In my opinion the perception that inequality is increasing could also be due to relative comparisons between the top 1%-10% and the top 0.1%-0.01%, as the former becomes relatively less influential.
Another random anecdote: I was reading the Wikipedia page of an ultramarathon runner, and apparently her father is a famous mathematician
I don’t find it concerning at all.
People who don’t come from privileged backgrounds (e.g. the 700 million people living on less of $2.15/day) don’t have the resources to worry about helping others effectively, the vast majority doesn’t speak English, and so on.
Random anecdote: I’m in a hospital for a minor visit right now, and I don’t find it concerning at all that many doctors here are likely to be from privileged backgrounds
I think looking at the top 1% is a bit misleading, as the top 0.1% and the top 1% had very different growth rates in the last decades.
If the relative amount of wealth in the top 0.1% increases compared to the top 1%, it makes sense for EA to prioritize more the former (assuming constant relative tractability)
Love this post, I think this framing can really help with engagement and retention, and to turn supporters into advocates, especially in the animal rights movement where so many people burn out or struggle to stay involved.
A small nitpick:
Dave Portnoy donated and fundraised hundreds of thousands of dollars for dog shelters.
Ricky Gervais is even vegan and has been very active on animal rights, especially dogs. He recently donated 2.5 million pounds to animal charities, and has been advocating against animal testing on beagles for a long time.
My impression is that the animal rights movement has been very successful in terms of celebrity endorsements, I’m surprised that I haven’s seen much of it for EA-style welfarist work (e.g. cage-free campaigns) and I wonder if there could be some opportunities there.