Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

by Eneasz
2 min read 2

1

CommunityBuilding effective altruismOpinion
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://deathisbad.substack.com/p/ea-has-a-pr-problem-in-that-it-cares

I am not a regular here, I was encouraged to link by a commenter. Sorry in advance.

p: my communist friends thought that effective altruism was about 'long termism' and not actually doing anything to help people here and now

m: So, they know GiveWell exist, they just think it another community/movement funding it? Or they never heard of it?

p: never heard of it

m: and what do they think now?

p: Well they said it was “PR” when I brought it up

This is as actual discussion from yesterday. I’ve written before about this topic, but I used too many words, only the last three paragraphs mattered. To be shorter:

EA is weird. It’s autistic and tech-positive and cares about outcomes. All of these things are super-cringe. The people who need to hear about it — others like us — WILL hear about it. Everyone else will only hear about it when the clout-chasing normies dunk on how weird we are. And when we point to the things we do which they would theoretically strongly approve of, they will dismiss that at “PR.”

Why? Because they already know what to think. They were told what to think by their thought leaders. Any evidence that goes against what their thought-leaders say is dismissed as disingenuous posturing. Actually doing good things does not matter to them. They dismiss it as PR because they know PR is primarily just deception, and they’re right.

Unfortunately the movement is leaning into massaging their image anyway. They talk a lot about literal PR. They spend actual effort on optics when that effort could be spent on doing something good instead. Optics to win over people who have antibodies specifically against manufactured optics manipulation.

If the actual, literal good things EA does — which are core to EA and predated any public awareness of the movement — are dismissed as “PR” because they don’t fit the NYT narrative… how will literal attempts to massage the EA image be viewed?

This isn’t really a problem if you don’t care what they think. These people literally do not matter. You cannot win over such people by mutilating your movement, you can only mutilate your movement.

Have the courage to be true to your convictions. That’s what brought EA where it is today. That’s what attracted all the people who support it and work within it and fund it. Mutilating that in a cursed chase for approval from people who want to hate you will only drive away all the good people who made EA what it is.

1

1
8

Reactions

1
8
Comments2


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Nathan Young2
2
0

No need to, but I'd prefer you copied the entire article text and put a subscription link at the bottom than just linking this bit. Hopefully that's as good for you too.

Reply
Eneasz1
0
0

Done! Subscription link isn't really needed, if anyone really wants to I'm sure they can click through. :) Just sharing the words.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while
Max Taylor
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Many thanks to Constance Li, Rachel Mason, Ronen Bar, Sam Tucker-Davis, and Yip Fai Tse for providing valuable feedback. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Artificial General Intelligence (basically, ‘AI that is as good as, or better than, humans at most intellectual tasks’) seems increasingly likely to be developed in the next 5-10 years. As others have written, this has major implications for EA priorities, including animal advocacy, but it’s hard to know how this should shape our strategy. This post sets out a few starting points and I’m really interested in hearing others’ ideas, even if they’re very uncertain and half-baked. Is AGI coming in the next 5-10 years? This is very well covered elsewhere but basically it looks increasingly likely, e.g.: * The Metaculus and Manifold forecasting platforms predict we’ll see AGI in 2030 and 2031, respectively. * The heads of Anthropic and OpenAI think we’ll see it by 2027 and 2035, respectively. * A 2024 survey of AI researchers put a 50% chance of AGI by 2047, but this is 13 years earlier than predicted in the 2023 version of the survey. * These predictions seem feasible given the explosive rate of change we’ve been seeing in computing power available to models, algorithmic efficiencies, and actual model performance (e.g., look at how far Large Language Models and AI image generators have come just in the last three years). * Based on this, organisations (both new ones, like Forethought, and existing ones, like 80,000 Hours) are taking the prospect of near-term AGI increasingly seriously. What could AGI mean for animals? AGI’s implications for animals depend heavily on who controls the AGI models. For example: * AGI might be controlled by a handful of AI companies and/or governments, either in alliance or in competition. * For example, maybe two government-owned companies separately develop AGI then restrict others from developing it. * These actors’ use of AGI might be dr
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
46
EA Global Referral Program
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read
7
7
10
EAGxNordics in Norway: apply now
Amalie Farestvedt 🔸
· · 3m read
1
1
32
Introducing Effective Accountability: Project and Job Search Accountability Groups
2 authors
· · 2m read
1
1
View more