LB

Karma: −319

LB Sep 13, 2022, 6:49 AM
−9 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Throwaway151’s comment on: Democratising Risk—or how EA deals with critics
Just a thought: if people on this forum don’t want accusations of supremacist ideological adherence to sprout up and maybe take root, then maybe be more conscientious about proactively not perpetuating supremacist behaviors. You are literally quoting a tweet here that contains a transgender pride flag and the this person’s full name. I find it hard to believe you have missed these things, yet you’ve inexplicably misgendered and misnamed this person.

LB Sep 13, 2022, 6:38 AM
−30 points
2 ∶ 3
in reply to: Throwaway151’s comment on: Democratising risk: a community misled
No, you haven’t. Their name is Émile P. Torres. From their own biography:
I recently changed my name from “Phil Torres” to “Émile P. Torres.”
I think you changed pronouns, but not their name. Their name is clearly in the tweet you’ve quoted. Check your third sentence.

Just a thought: if people on this forum don’t want accusations of supremacist ideological adherence to sprout up and maybe take root, then maybe be more conscientious about proactively not perpetuating supremacist behaviors. You are literally quoting a tweet here that contains a transgender pride flag and this person’s full name. I find it hard to believe you have missed these things, yet you’ve inexplicably misgendered and misnamed this person. Please read this carefully, its not an accusation, quite the opposite.

I’m non-binary and this makes me personally uncomfortable, fyi/as an example.

LB Sep 13, 2022, 3:54 AM
0 points
0 ∶ 2
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: “Agency” needs nuance
That definition aligns more with the sort of traditional, non-critical philosophical and mainstream economic approach to agency, which means there are now basically three definitions to agency in this post and comment thread from EA peeps. I’m glad I asked because I’ve always just assumed the sort of standard non-critical philosophy and mainstream economic definition (because that’s the origin story of EA too) when reading things here and encountering the term agency—which I do not feel fits at all with the definition intimated or literally given by the OP in this post or the referenced, original post (which was highly karma’d).
“Agency” refers to a range of proactive, ambitious, deliberate, goal-directed traits and habits.
I see that as a definition driven by self-interest, the original essay confirms this. There’s probably room for debate there, but its definitely not a “relatively goal-agnostic cognitive tool,” type definition, for instance.
So, I think I’ve got to stop assuming a shared definition here for this one and probably more importantly, stop assuming that EAs actually take it under consideration, really (there’d probably be a terms entry if it’s definition were valuable here, I suppose). I had no idea there were such post-y things in EA. How exciting. Ha!

LB Sep 12, 2022, 11:55 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: David M’s comment on: “Agency” needs nuance
That’s a definition I would assume an EA would give for the question- what it means to have agency for EAs, but from my view, it doesn’t mesh with how the OP is describing agency and therefore what is “agentic” in this post nor the post this post is a self-response to. In that first post, the one this is referencing, the OP gives seven recommendations that are clearly self-interested directives (e.g., “Figure out what you need, figure out who can help you get it, ask them for it”). If karma is an indicator, that first post was well received. What I am getting here, if I try to merge your position and my view of the OP’s position, is that self-interested pursuits are means to an ends which is a sort of eventual greater good? Like, I can pursue everything “agentic-ly” because my self-interest is virtuous (This sounds like objectivism to me, btw)?

Now, I actually think this current post is about rolling back that original post a bit, but only a little. Hence my questions about regulating ‘agency’ in others—to try and get some parameters or lane markers for this concept here.

These aren’t defined topics (agency, agentic) in the EA forum, btw. This is partly why I am so interested in how people define them since they seem to be culturally defined here (if in multiple ways) differently than they would be in non-critical philosophy and mainstream economics (from which EA is rooted).

LB Sep 12, 2022, 11:14 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: NinaR’s comment on: “Agency” needs nuance
It was the OP that injected self-interest into the concept of agency, hence my original question. And I totally agree about the meaning of words varying. None of this is a science at all, in my opinion, just non-critical philosophy and economics and where the two meet and intertwine. I’m just trying to understand how EA and EAs define these things, that’s all.

Thanks so much for your input. I really appreciate it.

LB Sep 12, 2022, 9:30 PM
1 point
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: NinaR’s comment on: “Agency” needs nuance
OK, how interesting. I tend to stick to the academic EA literature, ‘visionary’ type EA books and when on this forum, generally not posts like these kinds of posts. So I suppose I might not encounter too much of this… appropriation… for lack of a better term. You imply this self-serving quality is also infused into what it means for EAs to be rational as well? As if the economic definition of ‘rational self-interest’ is the definition of rational? Am I reading that correctly?

Thanks for the response!

LB Sep 12, 2022, 7:05 PM
1 point
1 ∶ 0
on: “Agency” needs nuance
I’m curious about your definition of agency and I wonder if its one that is shared by other effective altruists? Agency for me, from not an EA background although a long time observer, has little to do with these sort of necessarily self-serving goals that you are now arguing need to be reined in a bit, maybe. Rather, agency is your ability to consider and pursue them at all—from the Stanford philosophy dictionary: ”...an agent is a being with the capacity to act...” Agency is, for me then, more akin to self-determination than an imperative to pursue something for one’s self.

You end your current essay affirmatively quoting what I see as a quite clearly paternalistic view about how much agency, as you define it, others should basically be allowed to have. I am curious, do you believe that agency is something for you or anyone to control for anyone else, in any capacity? A thing to be regulated? I’d be curious to know if you believe that for your definition of agency as well as my definition (or the one from the Stanford philosophy dictionary).
I am asking these questions neutrally—its genuine curiosity to understand your perspective a bit better.

LB Sep 12, 2022, 2:17 AM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Values lock-in is already happening (without AGI)
Rereading this, I failed to draw a connection between time as a privilege and the lack of ability to understand how our ever increasing exposure to algorithms is solidifying a values[less] system—in great part, because of a lack of time [leisure]. The point was not to knock privileged people, but to point out that even some of the most privileged among us are unaware of how we are being locked-in to a values[less] system—so how can we expect less privileged people to be aware of this agency-reducing process? This is a parallel to the fight or flight response in the absence of reciprocity metaphor from my initial critique.

If I were to rewrite this, I would update it to better make this connection and make it explicit, rather than implied as this and the critique in which this essay is set are not a single document. I doubt the connection is apparent for anyone other than me tbh.

LB Sep 12, 2022, 12:53 AM
3 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Input Sought For Roundtable with Peter Singer, Toby Ord, and Allan Dafoe
I’d suggest that the ultimate objective for a lot of American-origin political theory and the ultimate objective for a lot of altruistic behavior theories (economics, psychology, etc.) is self-determination. That’s where everyone wants to get. Its easy for political theorists, especially American theorists to grasp because individual liberty and anti-authoritarianism are such pervasive themes in the US poli sci academy. Its probably harder for EA folks to see specifically because of the entrenchment EA has with material definitions of good and wellbeing and the focus EA has on defining those concepts for others, but I think its still there if you asked an EA to define what a person who no longer needs help looks like.
The big question is, how do we get to self-determination and leading into that, how do altruists and political scientists define self-determination? I think that’d be an interesting parallel or juxtaposition.
I’d be really curious to hear about the value or importance Peter Singer places on self-determination, currently, and if he sees any parallels between this pretty clear objective of American political theory and the objectives of EA. Especially in the context of the sort of global battle (literal and figurative) for self-determination we currently find ourselves within.
You should post a link to the roundtable if there ends up being one—live or post. Sounds very interesting given the theme and thinkers.

LB Sep 9, 2022, 4:13 AM
7 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: GraceAdams🔸’s comment on: Marketing Messages Trial for GWWC Giving Guide Campaign
Hi GraceAdams,
Sure thing—please know its all meant constructively. I’m not issuing a complaint in anyway.
Hope something here was helpful! I’ve read this forum for ages without an account and only recently signed up to submit something and now I fear I am dangerously annoying. Ha! To be fair to me though, its rare that there is a cause comms post here. Good luck with your campaigning.

LB Sep 8, 2022, 11:06 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: david_reinstein’s comment on: Marketing Messages Trial for GWWC Giving Guide Campaign
re: United Way—yes, it is a horribly ineffective organization compared to EA charities, certainly, but I was actually referencing their model—they are an intermediary between their selected causes and individual donors, like GWWC, they have a tailored list of causes to pledge to, like GWWC, and a giant part of their model is time period pledging, like GWWC. I just think their similarities would be a more apt comparison for cost effectiveness on email acquisition (or better, member/pledge acquisition).

I don’t have their numbers, but its a pretty scrutinized organization and I think the comparison, frankly, is also campaign opportunity for an org like GWWC that is actually doing it better… maybe worth a poke around.

LB Sep 8, 2022, 10:07 PM
4 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: david_reinstein’s comment on: Marketing Messages Trial for GWWC Giving Guide Campaign
Sure. Just a couple quick thoughts and clarification:
We/they have done that in other contexts, see e.g., here.
But it’s a long funnel from a Facebook ad to a commitment to the very high-value ‘pledge’ outcomes...
That is a long funnel—its an even longer funnel from those pledge landing pages to the actual effective causes. I think what I mean is to directly pitch the actual causes GWWC lists as effective (e.g., AMF). Like a FB video about Malaria that links directly to tailored AMF pledge landing page all about how this AMF pledge is super effective. Something like that. People donate from SM and search ads all of the time. And its probably also a lot easier to target specific causes through Meta’s ad platforms than it is trying to profile people who might be down with preference sacrificing, no? Anyway, I don’t think I was clear. I meant testing EA causes specifically and then growing that relationship from there. I think it would be an interesting outcome comparison to what you’ve just now reported on testing.

Compared to the value the EA community is putting on bringing new people into the fold, this seems like a bargain, but of course, it depends on the follow-through.
I am not sure its necessarily a valid cost effective measure to compare what you are doing to other EA org’s audience acquisition costs. The United Way, which is much more analogous to GWWC, would probably be a better comparison. I highly doubt they have an 8 dollar email capture cost or clickthrough cost. New member cost, sure and then some, but that goes back to our now agreed to point, I think, about what ‘results’ actually are.
Not sure what you mean by ‘no actual cause promotion’ though; the ad, the page, and the giving guide are all promoting key EA-relevant themes.
I mean the actual EA causes like AMF. GWWC is not a cause, neither is its pledge mechanism for that matter, really. Its a means to an ends for altruists. This and the dollar commitments to member acquisition EA groups commit to are probably a larger critique I should’ve written instead of my theoretical one that was likely straight up ignored (ha!) , but I think EA orgs could take a page from cause-related marketing history. For example, AMEX, when they paid to restore the statue of liberty in the 1980s, didn’t actually do a ton of talking about AMEX. They cobranded the cause campaign, for sure, but it was all about the statue of liberty. And now everyone associates AMEX and the statue of liberty and not in a negative way and probably subconsciously for a lot of folks. And their numbers went boom during the campaign. The short point: the cause always comes first is the first rule of cause marketing. Altruists in particular would benefit from always putting the actual causes first, rather than the altruists club. If an altruist is doing too much talking about themselves (including their reasons and methods), people might start to doubt the whole altruist thing. Again, probably more meta than this very practical marketing campaign study, but I think its a pretty important perspective.

LB Sep 8, 2022, 6:46 PM
7 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Marketing Messages Trial for GWWC Giving Guide Campaign
This is off the cuff, but I am sort of surprised all of this wasn’t tested against CTAs specific to pledges and/or directly donating. Maybe you’ve done that previously and I’ve not seen that work or you haven’t shared. 8 bucks a pop seems like a lot to me, for a cause promoter to spend, especially an EA cause, with no actual cause promotion. My (informed—I’m cause PR/marketing) guess is that if you associated your recruitment campaign with actual “donate” and “pledge” messaging with urgency around the cause, it would be just as effective as this in capturing emails—plus you get the whole actually being effective thing too. I’d also guess that if someone donates or pledges through your platform(s), they are far more likely to develop an actual relationship with GWWC than if shown a guide.

Was there a CTA (e.g., donate now) follow through with the ads linked to guides?

Last off the cuff: your ‘results’ should always end with a cause related goal for a cause when doing cause related marketing. Email capture is not a cause related goal. A captured email that leads to a pledge or donation—that’s a goal and a result. Maybe you’re tracking and measuring this on the backend. If not, I definitely would. A throw away email at 8 bucks a pop is not only expensive, but wasteful. You should find out if that captured email actually means something if you want to know if your campaign was successful.
PS—if mentioning “off the cuff” twice didn’t communicate it, this is a draft opinion. I only read this post and once through at that. I could very well be missing things. I referenced email capture, but the same could basically be said for clicks as well.

LB Sep 3, 2022, 5:31 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Rebecca’s comment on: EA is about maximization, and maximization is perilous
I should have been more clear I guess: I was talking about the moral imperative of altruists, not a social regulating or political philosophy. But, from the perspective I am arguing here, imbuing that psychopath with agency would negate work to imbue everyone else with agency. I am actually not arguing against utility here, just against determining what is good for others, which only makes sense if you believe that people, as a whole or majority, are good or will choose good—which is sort of a required belief to be an altruist, isn’t it?

LB Sep 3, 2022, 5:27 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Rebecca’s comment on: EA is about maximization, and maximization is perilous
I don’t know of any libertarian philosophy that really considers the importance or moral value of other people’s agency let alone one that actively seeks to enable agency in others in order to do or maximize good. As far as I understand libertarianism, its pretty much just concerned with “self” and the only other-regarding aspect of it is ensuring that others don’t interfere with others, in order to preserve “self”, which makes it not other-regarding at all. There’s certainly little if any altruism involved. I mean, an individual libertarian could pursue altruism, I suppose, but its not a part of the underlying philosophy. I’d actually suggest that altruism, which is a reciprocal behavior, is pretty opposing to libertarian behaviors.

LB Sep 2, 2022, 9:15 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Sharmake’s comment on: EA is about maximization, and maximization is perilous
Yep, that’s what I said. The further you get from addressing basic human needs problems, the more grey “good” becomes. But its always grey, it just gets more and more grey towards ‘the tails’ as you say. I’m not really a moral realist either.
Another way to state my overall argument is that really the only altruistic thing to do is to make sure everyone has the power to make effectual moral decisions for themselves—the same power you have. This doesn’t exclude addressing basic human needs, btw. It would likely necessitate it.
If you believe in people, which I imagine effective altruists do because what’s the point otherwise, then people with agency that end up matching your level of agency will also end up updating to your moral position anyway, if you’re right.

LB Sep 2, 2022, 7:28 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: EA is about maximization, and maximization is perilous
This problem of consequentialism applied to real human problems will always be there as long as what is “good” for others is not defined by those others, for themselves. Its impossible to determine what is or isn’t good for another person, without abstracting their agency away—which means whatever conclusion you come to about what is “good” for them, will always be flawed.

There are a lot of things we can say with certainty are nearly universally understood as “good”—like being able to live, for instance. It means EA isn’t in conflict with the right direction, for most, at this moment in time, because its giving and “good” work is largely focused on these sort of lower level, fundamental human and animal welfare problems. As you progress however, which is all basically theoretical at this point, this is where what is “good” becomes more and more grey and you encounter the problems created by having ignored the agency of those others.
As you get closer to a potential maximum benefit, I’d suggest you’d realize that the only real “good” or benefit an altruist can pursue is the maximization of agency for others. People with agency choose life, they choose better living, they choose personal progress, they can better see suffering, they choose to acknowledge the agency of others and if this sort of agency as good is the motivation of EAs, then you are far less likely to have to deal with fanaticism issues. When was there ever a harmful fanatic who’s MO was “I want to give everyone else all the power”?

LB Aug 16, 2022, 10:49 PM
0 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: The Credibility of Apocalyptic Claims: A Critique of Techno-Futurism within Existential Risk
x

LB Aug 16, 2022, 10:20 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ember’s comment on: The Credibility of Apocalyptic Claims: A Critique of Techno-Futurism within Existential Risk
x

LB Aug 16, 2022, 8:37 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: The Credibility of Apocalyptic Claims: A Critique of Techno-Futurism within Existential Risk
x