Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
oliverbramford0
0
0

Parts 3 and 5 of the article linked below explain this approach is more detail, although my thinking has moved on a bit since writing this.

There's a good chance that these ideas will be refined and written up collaborative in an applied context as part of GeM Labs' Understanding and Optimising Policy project over the next year. If they are out of scope of this project, I intend to develop them independently and share my progress.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DFZ9OAb0g5dtQuZHbAfngwACQkgSpjqrpWWOeMrsq7o/edit?usp=sharing

Reply
See in context
by oliverbramford
2 min read 4

2

Frontpage

Systems change and Effective Altruism each have their own body of knowledge, tools and ways of working. Both fields are aligned in purpose, but operate in different paradigms:

Effective Altruism

“I maximize my personal impact”

“How can I do the most good?”

“The main ways I can maximize my personal impact are through my career, voluntary work and philanthropic donations.”

“Logical, rational, critical thought is a sure path to better decisions and greater impact”

“Impact is unknown unless it’s quantified.”

“We should allocate resources to the causes that are statistically most likely to have the greatest positive impact.”

 

Systems Change

“We maximize our collective impact”

“How can we create the world we want?"

“The main ways I can maximize my impact are by thinking and acting systemically: being an example of what I want to create, and collaborating with other pioneers to carve out a new collective reality.”

“Linear thinking is often inappropriate, and regularly leads to short-sighted decisions and ineffective behavior”

“Systems change impact is often very long term and arguably impossible to attribute to a specific individual, group or project.”

“We need to prioritise systems change causes where the system in question is unsustainable or excessively unjust.”

 

Marginal vs Total Impact
Effective Altruism has tended to focus on how to maximise marginal personal impact, whereas a systems change approach tends to focus on total collective impact.

An Effective Altruist, by focusing on impact at the margin, may ask questions such as:

  • What impact will my next $100 donation make in this charity vs that charity?

  • What impact will I have in this career vs that career?

This line of thinking, by focussing on immediate tangible alternatives, lends itself to logical analysis and rigorous empirical evaluation; focus on marginal impact encourages linear thinking.

 

Systems change tends to focus on total collective impact. Systems change work involves:

  • Collective diagnosis of systemic failings

  • Collective exploration to identify opportunities for change

  • Collective visioning of how a new system could be

  • Collaborative creativity to bring these visions into reality, and take them to scale

This approach invites sustained collective tolerance of deep uncertainty, in order to make space for new cultural norms to emerge. Linear, black-and-white thinking risks compromising this creative process before desirable novel realities have fully formed in a self-sustaining way.

 

In my experience, a systems change approach tends to sense its way to radical innovation, whereas an EA approach tends to think its way there. Both approaches can lead to great breakthroughs, and I suspect could be deeply enriched by each other.

 

This is post 2 of 3.
Post 1: "Why to Optimize Earth"
Post 3: "5 Types of Systems Change Causes with the Potential for Exceptionally High Impact"




Thanks for valuable suggestions & feedback from: Ray Taylor, Ulrik Horn, Kyle Bogosian, Samuel Hilton, Dony Christie & Alex Dickinson.

2

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments4


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Michael_Wiebe4
0
0

I think the marginal vs. total distinction is confused. Maximizing personal impact, while taking into account externalities (as EAs do), will be equivalent to maximizing collective impact.

An Effective Altruist, by focusing on impact at the margin, may ask questions such as: What impact will my next $100 donation make in this charity vs that charity?

It seems you're trying to set up a distinction between EA focusing on small issues, and systems change focusing on big issues. But this is a strawman. Even if an individual makes a $100 donation, the cause they're donating to can still target a systemic issue. In any case, there are now EAs making enormous donations: "What if you were in a position to give away billions of dollars to improve the world? What would you do with it?"

This approach invites sustained collective tolerance of deep uncertainty, in order to make space for new cultural norms to emerge. Linear, black-and-white thinking risks compromising this creative process before desirable novel realities have fully formed in a self-sustaining way.

This is pretty mystical.

Reply
oliverbramford1
0
0

while taking into account externalities (as EAs do)

I think that the current EA methodology to take into account impact externalities is incomplete. I am not aware of any way to reliably quantify flow-through effects, or to quantify how a particular cause area indirectly affects the impact of other cause areas.

The concept of total impact, if somehow integrated into our cause prioritisation methodology, may help us to account for impact externalities more accurately. I concede that total impact may be too simplistic a concept...

For what it's worth, I currently think the solution requires modelling the Earth as a complex system, clarifying top-level metrics to optimise the system for, and a probability weighted theory of change for the system as a whole.

It seems you're trying to set up a distinction between EA focusing on small issues, and systems change focusing on big issues.

I do not mean to say that EA focuses on small issues and systems change focuses on big issues. Rather, I see EA as having a robust (but incomplete) cause prioritisation methodology, and systems change having a methodology that accounts well for complexity (but neglects cause prioritisation in the context of the system of Earth as a whole).

This is pretty mystical.

On reflection, I think that conducting systems change projects in appropriate phases, with clear expectations for each phase, is a viable way to synthesis EA and systems change approaches and culture. Specifically, a substantial research phase would typically be required to understand the system before one can know what interventions to prioritise.

Reply
Michael_Wiebe0
0
0

For what it's worth, I currently think the solution requires modelling the Earth as a complex system, clarifying top-level metrics to optimise the system for, and a probability weighted theory of change for the system as a whole.

I'd be interested in seeing this. Do you have anything written up?

Reply
oliverbramford0
0
0

Parts 3 and 5 of the article linked below explain this approach is more detail, although my thinking has moved on a bit since writing this.

There's a good chance that these ideas will be refined and written up collaborative in an applied context as part of GeM Labs' Understanding and Optimising Policy project over the next year. If they are out of scope of this project, I intend to develop them independently and share my progress.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DFZ9OAb0g5dtQuZHbAfngwACQkgSpjqrpWWOeMrsq7o/edit?usp=sharing

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
We’ve written a new report on the threat of AI-enabled coups.  I think this is a very serious risk – comparable in importance to AI takeover but much more neglected.  In fact, AI-enabled coups and AI takeover have pretty similar threat models. To see this, here’s a very basic threat model for AI takeover: 1. Humanity develops superhuman AI 2. Superhuman AI is misaligned and power-seeking 3. Superhuman AI seizes power for itself And now here’s a closely analogous threat model for AI-enabled coups: 1. Humanity develops superhuman AI 2. Superhuman AI is controlled by a small group 3. Superhuman AI seizes power for the small group While the report focuses on the risk that someone seizes power over a country, I think that similar dynamics could allow someone to take over the world. In fact, if someone wanted to take over the world, their best strategy might well be to first stage an AI-enabled coup in the United States (or whichever country leads on superhuman AI), and then go from there to world domination. A single person taking over the world would be really bad. I’ve previously argued that it might even be worse than AI takeover. [1] The concrete threat models for AI-enabled coups that we discuss largely translate like-for-like over to the risk of AI takeover.[2] Similarly, there’s a lot of overlap in the mitigations that help with AI-enabled coups and AI takeover risk — e.g. alignment audits to ensure no human has made AI secretly loyal to them, transparency about AI capabilities, monitoring AI activities for suspicious behaviour, and infosecurity to prevent insiders from tampering with training.  If the world won't slow down AI development based on AI takeover risk (e.g. because there’s isn’t strong evidence for misalignment), then advocating for a slow down based on the risk of AI-enabled coups might be more convincing and achieve many of the same goals.  I really want to encourage readers — especially those at labs or governments — to do something
Relevant opportunities
23
Two jobs at The Jeremy Coller Centre for Animal Sentience, LSE
J. Birch
· · 1m read
0
0
41
Open Phil's Farm Animal Welfare team is hiring a Program Assistant!
LewisBollard
· · 2m read
0
0
6
Funding and job opportunities, events, and thoughts on professionals (Fieldbuilders newsletter #8)
gergo
· · 3m read
0
0
View more