Comparing the Impact of Donating a Portion of Income from a High-Paying Job vs. Pursuing 80,000 Hours Careers

satelliteprocess

Mo Putera

1y*

A few quick reactions in case they're helpful:

Your questions come from a frame of altruism as obligatory, and while I feel that force (it's what got me into the movement), I would propose excitement as a healthier more sustainable frame; see Tyler Alterman's story for an example of such a shift
There is no obligation to maximise one's income for donating to impactful charities that necessarily entail a lot of personal sacrifice. There are examples of people who I admire for doing earning to give well, but AFAICT they take the opportunity frame, e.g. Jeff Kaufman and Julia Wise, AGB and Denise Melchin, etc (do correct me if you're reading this and think I misrepresented you?)
The reasoning that top roles would almost certainly be filled by top candidates so there's no point to worrying about them being filled is counterproductive in the aggregate, and ignores that you may be one of those top candidates, which you can only really find out by applying — it's also useful to reframe the job application process as an information-gathering exercise in personal fit, instead of just assuming no-fit (not very evidence-based, that)
You shouldn't be troubled by the dilemma of pursuing a career in harmful industries: to first approximation, just don't do it, there are many reasons why you shouldn't. I'd classify this line of reasoning under the perils of naive maximisation, and note that it's really hard to avoid harm as a fanatic of anything in general (and utilitarianism in particular)
On AI, I'll let others chime in, although I think 80,000 Hours' primer on mitigating AI risks is a solidly comprehensive introduction that should help you understand why many EAs prioritise it, and argue against its specific points / framing etc to be more substantive. The other thing I'd point out is that AI's mindshare on the forum is disproportionate to other proxies for "emphasis", like talent (FTEs) and funding vs other areas, and it's worth clarifying what you have in mind / are concerned about
I also think taking a historical perspective on how the movement emerged may illuminate the AI thing for you — the ideas underpinning EA came not just from the global health & development side via the charity evaluators (Karnofsky, Hassenfeld, etc), but also philosophers (Singer, Parfit, etc) and transhumanists (Bostrom, Yudkowsky, etc), the lattermost of whom had been thinking about the consequences of radical future technological change, in particular events which might drastically curtail humanity's future astronomically-large potential. When MacAskill and Todd created the Center for Effective Altruism as an umbrella org for 80K and GWWC way back when, the "Effective Altruism" part was intended to be a purely descriptive part of CEA's name, but then took a life of its own (becoming a question, an ideology, a social movement that wants to be more question than ideology, etc) that gradually encompassed all these ostensibly disparate ideas under a sort of pluralistic banner of doing good better. Not everyone under this banner agrees with each other

Mo Putera

1y*

A few quick reactions in case they're helpful:

Your questions come from a frame of altruism as obligatory, and while I feel that force (it's what got me into the movement), I would propose excitement as a healthier more sustainable frame; see Tyler Alterman's story for an example of such a shift
There is no obligation to maximise one's income for donating to impactful charities that necessarily entail a lot of personal sacrifice. There are examples of people who I admire for doing earning to give well, but AFAICT they take the opportunity frame, e.g. Jeff Kaufman and Julia Wise, AGB and Denise Melchin, etc (do correct me if you're reading this and think I misrepresented you?)
The reasoning that top roles would almost certainly be filled by top candidates so there's no point to worrying about them being filled is counterproductive in the aggregate, and ignores that you may be one of those top candidates, which you can only really find out by applying — it's also useful to reframe the job application process as an information-gathering exercise in personal fit, instead of just assuming no-fit (not very evidence-based, that)
You shouldn't be troubled by the dilemma of pursuing a career in harmful industries: to first approximation, just don't do it, there are many reasons why you shouldn't. I'd classify this line of reasoning under the perils of naive maximisation, and note that it's really hard to avoid harm as a fanatic of anything in general (and utilitarianism in particular)
On AI, I'll let others chime in, although I think 80,000 Hours' primer on mitigating AI risks is a solidly comprehensive introduction that should help you understand why many EAs prioritise it, and argue against its specific points / framing etc to be more substantive. The other thing I'd point out is that AI's mindshare on the forum is disproportionate to other proxies for "emphasis", like talent (FTEs) and funding vs other areas, and it's worth clarifying what you have in mind / are concerned about
I also think taking a historical perspective on how the movement emerged may illuminate the AI thing for you — the ideas underpinning EA came not just from the global health & development side via the charity evaluators (Karnofsky, Hassenfeld, etc), but also philosophers (Singer, Parfit, etc) and transhumanists (Bostrom, Yudkowsky, etc), the lattermost of whom had been thinking about the consequences of radical future technological change, in particular events which might drastically curtail humanity's future astronomically-large potential. When MacAskill and Todd created the Center for Effective Altruism as an umbrella org for 80K and GWWC way back when, the "Effective Altruism" part was intended to be a purely descriptive part of CEA's name, but then took a life of its own (becoming a question, an ideology, a social movement that wants to be more question than ideology, etc) that gradually encompassed all these ostensibly disparate ideas under a sort of pluralistic banner of doing good better. Not everyone under this banner agrees with each other