There are two different EA messages: EA is about a) doing good better or b) doing the most good. Despite the surface similarities – they are worlds apart. B) is a very singerian notion. I do hope messaging can move toward doing good better.
I've been reading outsider's takes on EA on twitter for the past few days, and can't help feeling that it's mostly bad (faith) takes. Obviously, I know most people have suboptimal epistemic practices – but is it really this bad? I won't even quote some of the takes here, but they must surely be made in bad faith.
I was quite worried of EA's future since the FTX news broke, especially the reaction of the public – but for the past few days I've instead been strengthened in my conviction that EA is a force for good. No other community has the curiosity, moral virtue or insightful discussion that EA has.
While I am outraged at EA leadership for allowing this to happen, I am incredibly thankful for the EA community at this time. Last Thursday, I was unsure if EA would survive this. For now, I think it will.
I still object somewhat to being an "EA". In worlds where EA's epistemic rigour breaks down, I think lots of people identifying as an "EA" without thinking through what it entails is a prevalent cause. I do reckon that for some, EA might give life meaning – but don't make it the core of your identity. First and foremost, you are a human wanting to do good. EA as a research field can help you find answers, and EA as a community can help you find friends and social motivation.
Yeah, I don't know how much future there can be for capital E-ffective Altruism, or "effective altruist" as a self-identified label. Whereas there obviously is a future for trying to solve the problems that EAs have worked on, and for many of the organisations that have worked on these problems. The question for me is where one draws the line in-between.
Thoughts on on effective altruism and semantic drift.
Effective altruism – is it a question, a movement, an answer, a professional network or a community? Listed are the top three definitions found from a quick search:
The organising idea behind 'effective altruism' – that we can do good better – is quite self-evident. I agree with this principle. However, to what extent should this principle be the foundation of a cohesive group-identity?
In my view, effective altruism's raison d'être is as a vehicle for the underlying ideas. EA ought to be promoted to the extent it benefits the adaptation of these ideas – scope sensitivity, curiosity, good epistemic rigour and a will for a better world, alongside the other core principles of honesty, integrity, and so on. Should 'EA' as an identity be promoted, or should we strive to keep our identity small?
I don't know if EA as a widespread identity, brand, and public-facing social movement will be viable anymore. Currently, I've heard people say that the phrase "effective altruism" makes them feel physically sick, and from others that they hear multiple VCs telling making strongly negative comments - "effective altruism my ass", etc. The mood on Twitter is overwhelmingly negative.
At the same time, I don't think there's much point in me trying to convince people that it is necessarily unrecoverable, as there's a fair chance this situation will become clear in one direction or the other, to everyone as the dust settles.
Even before November, I can't imagine using the words "Effective Altruism" as part of central part of a pitch for a for-profit, especially if you thought you had a promising investment. You would show your product/team/customers, etc.
Also, I'm skeptical that a non-profit would ever rely on it's "EA status" when communicating to non-EA donors. This is based on experience with "neartermist" interventions (ones that developed a lot of external faculty and impressiveness in the last two years, and existed outside of the pre-Nov 2022 longtermist funding environment).
My immediate reaction would be that this VC reaction was prompted by a very poor attempt at grift. But that behavior seems undesirable anyway?
You misunderstand me, I'm not talking about how VCs respond to a pitch, I'm talking about unprompted disdainful comments. For example, here is a new clip of two prominent bay-area investors:
I think that anyone who decides to press on with EA branding is going to see a lot more such reactions over the coming years.
There are truly formidable people and talent in EA causes, or associated with EA. Maybe one situation where a pitch involves EAs, is where their products and concepts are truly valuable, and proved by use by EAs, or virtuous, hard working people trying to improve the world.