1 min read 17

4

Here's a recent post about how not everyone has to be a hero, from Miranda.

4

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments17


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

What an amazing post! Really valuable point, so clearly made. Thanks very much Miranda, and Ryan for cross-posting.

Are there really that many opportunities to be a "sidekick" in EA? The opening for Bostrom's assistant is the only one I can think of. I know some EA orgs use virtual assistants, but my impression is that there's a large supply of these people outside EA, and they can be hired fairly cheaply.

We actually need more people with this mindset at the moment.

It's true that we could hire general assistants, and now that we are more financially sustainable we will consider doing so in the future.

"We actually need more people with this mindset at the moment."

What do you mean? Can you give a specific example?

Well a lot of people want to be leaders, perhaps more than is realistic within any one organisation (though we do our best to give everyone a lot of autonomy as individuals, and also run a range of projects which themselves have a lot of autonomy).

We really need someone to handle office management, logistics and some PA work. We are likely to hire someone for this in the coming round, but it hasn't been easy to find anyone who will commit to that kind of work for a significant period of time.

I've heard people who've worked at EA organisations say that the people doing that work struck them as some of the most altruistic, because it didn't have the rewards or glory or fun associated with more visible work.

We really need someone to handle office management, logistics and some PA work.

Does the person need to be an EA? It seems that Samwise could have been replaced with a Dwarven mercenary. Is the concern you would have to pay such a person more if they lacked inherent motivation?

I recall Ruiari making an excellent sidekick to Brian Tomasik once.

Meanwhile, there were doubts from others who didn’t feel this way. The “we need heroes, the world needs heroes” narrative is especially strong in the rationalist community.

What are rationalist heroes supposed to do? And what can “sidekicks” do to help them? (I ask these questions as someone who’s not that familiar with the rationalist community.)

A hero means roughly what you'd expect - someone who takes personal responsibility for solving world problems. Kind of like an effective altruist. A sidekick doesn't have any specific jargon meaning.

For a bit more flavour, here's a description from hpmor:

You could call it heroic responsibility, maybe,” Harry Potter said. “Not like the usual sort. It means that whatever happens, no matter what, it’s always your fault. Even if you tell Professor McGonagall, she’s not responsible for what happens, you are. Following the school rules isn’t an excuse, someone else being in charge isn’t an excuse, even trying your best isn’t an excuse. There just aren’t any excuses, you’ve got to get the job done no matter what.” Harry’s face tightened. “That’s why I say you’re not thinking responsibly, Hermione. Thinking that your job is done when you tell Professor McGonagall—that isn’t heroine thinking. Like Hannah being beat up is okay then, because it isn’t your fault anymore. Being a heroine means your job isn’t finished until you’ve done whatever it takes to protect the other girls, permanently.” In Harry’s voice was a touch of the steel he had acquired since the day Fawkes had been on his shoulder. “You can’t think as if just following the rules means you’ve done your duty. –HPMOR, chapter 75.

A hero means roughly what you'd expect - someone who takes personal responsibility for solving world problems. Kind of like an effective altruist.

In that case doesn't the sort of "sidekick" that Miranda describes count as a hero, because being a sidekick is plausibly one of the best ways that they can contribute to solving the world's problems?

I was wondering what rationalist heroes are supposed to do more specifically - can you shed any light on that? :)

I think if you're having difficulty understanding what they mean by hero, it's because you're thinking too concretely, not because people are using the word in an atypical way. I can try to describe the tasks anyway - often they're someone who uses skills like bravery, leadership and insight to perform difficult and important tasks for society's benefit. But you can be a hero without meeting those specific criteria. It's more of an aesthetic.

A hero means roughly what you'd expect - someone who takes personal responsibility for solving world problems. Kind of like an effective altruist.

What I understand about rationality 'heroes' is limited to what I've gleaned from Miranda's post, but to me it seems like earning to give fits much more naturally into a sidekick category than into a hero category.

I see the hero as the one pushing innovative new strategies for world-changing (eg. starting a business in that area, like Givewell - specifics subject to what changes the hero wants to make), while the sidekicks are the ones that help out by being employed in that business (in a non-directing role) or donating to it or providing moral support etc. - they help what's already been created do better, and thus have to choose from people/causes that already exist rather than creating their own.

What would examples of new such strategies and businesses be?

More from RyanCarey
144
RyanCarey
· · 9m read
45
RyanCarey
· · 1m read
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
1. Introduction My blog, Reflective Altruism, aims to use academic research to drive positive change within and around the effective altruism movement. Part of that mission involves engagement with the effective altruism community. For this reason, I try to give periodic updates on blog content and future directions (previous updates: here and here) In today’s post, I want to say a bit about new content published in 2024 (Sections 2-3) and give an overview of other content published so far (Section 4). I’ll also say a bit about upcoming content (Section 5) as well as my broader academic work (Section 6) and talks (Section 7) related to longtermism. Section 8 concludes with a few notes about other changes to the blog. I would be keen to hear reactions to existing content or suggestions for new content. Thanks for reading. 2. New series this year I’ve begun five new series since last December. 1. Against the singularity hypothesis: One of the most prominent arguments for existential risk from artificial agents is the singularity hypothesis. The singularity hypothesis holds roughly that self-improving artificial agents will grow at an accelerating rate until they are orders of magnitude more intelligent than the average human. I think that the singularity hypothesis is not on as firm ground as many advocates believe. My paper, “Against the singularity hypothesis,” makes the case for this conclusion. I’ve written a six-part series Against the singularity hypothesis summarizing this paper. Part 1 introduces the singularity hypothesis. Part 2 and Part 3 together give five preliminary reasons for doubt. The next two posts examine defenses of the singularity hypothesis by Dave Chalmers (Part 4) and Nick Bostrom (Part 5). Part 6 draws lessons from this discussion. 2. Harms: Existential risk mitigation efforts have important benefits but also identifiable harms. This series discusses some of the most important harms of existential risk mitigation efforts. Part 1 discus
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
THL UK protestors at the Royal Courts of Justice, Oct 2024. Credit: SammiVegan.  Four years of work has led to his moment. When we started this, we knew it would be big. A battle of David versus Goliath as we took the Government to court. But we also knew that it was the right thing to do, to fight for the millions of Frankenchickens that were suffering because of the way that they had been bred. And on Friday 13th December, we got the result we had been nervously waiting for. Represented by Advocates for Animals, four years ago we started the process to take the Government to court, arguing that fast-growing chicken breeds, known as Frankenchickens, are illegal under current animal welfare laws. After a loss, and an appeal, in October 2024 we entered the courts once more. And the judgment is now in on one of the most important legal cases for animals in history. The judges have ruled in favour on our main argument - that the law says that animals should not be kept in the UK if it means they will suffer because of how they have been bred. This is a huge moment for animals in the UK. A billion Frankenchickens are raised with suffering coded into their DNA each year. They are bred to grow too big, too fast, to make the most profit possible. In light of this ruling, we believe that farmers are breaking the law if they continue to keep these chickens. However, Defra, the Government department responsible for farming, has been let off the hook on a technicality. Because Defra has been silent on fast-growing breeds of chicken, the judges found they had no concrete policy that they could rule against. This means that our case has been dismissed and the judges have not ordered Defra to act. It is clear: by not addressing this major animal welfare crisis, Defra has failed billions of animals - and the farming community. This must change. While this ruling has failed to force the Government to act, it has confirmed our view that farmers are acting criminally by using