Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
One-time pad2
4
0

People should do shit like this more often!

Reply
See in context
by West
3 min read 11

106

Building effective altruismCommunityExistential riskCriticism of longtermism and existential risk studiesEffective altruism in the mediaLongtermismWilliam MacAskill
Frontpage

We are a small community, but our ideas have the potential to spread far if communicated effectively. Refining our communication means being well calibrated as to how people outside the EA community react to our worldviews. So when MacAskill's article about longtermism was published last month in the NYT, I was pretty interested to see the comment section. I started to count various reactions, got carried away, and ended up going through 300 or so. Below is a numerical summary.

Caveats

  • Selection bias is present. I would guess NYT commenters skew older and liberal.
  • It's possible the comments don't reflect overall sentiment of the article's readers, because people might only feel compelled to comment when they are strongly skeptical, undercounting casually positive readers.
  • Many people signaled they felt positive towards the article and longtermist thinking, but were entirely pessimistic about our future -- basically "This is all well and good, but _". Sometimes it was hard to know whether to tally these as positive or skeptical; I usually went with whichever sentiment was the main focus of the comment.
  • For the most part, this survey doesn't capture ideas people had to help our long term future. Some of those not tallied included better education, fusion power, planting trees, and outlawing social media.

Tallies

  • 60 - Skeptical -- either of longtermism, or our future
    • 20 - Our broken culture prevents us from focusing on the long-term
    • 16 - We're completely doomed, there's no point
    • 7 - We are hard-wired as animals to think short term
    • 7 - Predicting the future is hard; made up numbers
    • 5 - We don't know what future generations will want
    • 5 - We don't even value current lives
    • 3 - I value potential people far less than current people
    • 3 - It's easy to do horrific things in the name of longtermism
    • 2 - This is ivory tower BS
  • 42 - Generally positive
  • 17 - This is nothing new (most of these comments were either about climate activism or seven generation sustainability)
  • 7 - This planet is not ours / humans don't deserve to survive
  • 7 - We should lower the population
  • 6 - This is all about environmental sustainability
  • 6 - Animals matter too
  • 5 - Republicans are terrible
  • 4 - Reincarnation might be true
  • 3 - We should ease up on technology
  • 2 - Technology will save us
  • 1 - Time travel might be true
  • 1 - Society using carbon is a good thing
  • 1 - This idea is un-American
  • 1 - This is all the fault of boomers
  • 1 - Stop blaming boomers

Takeaways

Overall, I found the responses to be more negative than anticipated. The most common sentiment I saw was utter pessimism, which I worry is a self-fulling prophecy.

There was very little reaction to or discussion about the risks of bioweapons and AI. Many people seemed to substitute concern for our long-term future solely with concern for the environment. This is understandable given the prominence of environmentalism -- it's already top-of-mind for many.

I think people struggled to appreciate the timescale proposed in the article. Many referenced leaving the Earth a better place for their (literal) grandchildren, or for seven generations from now, but not thousands of years.

106

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments11


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Nathan Young26
6
1

A concept this reminds me of "Cheems[1] mindset". This is the notion that many people just want to say why things will fail in order to justify why they don't have to try.

I'm not sure if this is a useful concept (upvote downvote). I guess I think that something might inspire these people to change their minds, but right now they neither agree nor disagree and aren't doing much. 

I also link this to The Myth of the Rational Voter which suggests that people are rationally irrational. In this example. The readers of the New York Times have a lived experience that not much changes and that most grand plans fail. Of course William MacAskill will not be sucessful. It's very cheap to say so, since they don't deep down expect that to affect anything.

From https://normielisation.substack.com/p/cheems-mindset: 

To be clear, cheems mindset isn’t arguing that a policy is a bad idea because it leads to bad outcomes. A policy like rent control is bad because it leads to lower supply of rental properties and increases prices outside the rent controlled area. On that basis, it would not be cheems mindset to oppose it.

Instead, cheems mindset is automatically dismissing an idea on the basis that it cannot be done, or would be hard to do- it would be cheems mindset to oppose introducing rent control legislation because you were worried about staffing levels in [the housing department], for example.

  1. ^

    The two most famous internet dogs two Shiba Inus who the intnet names Doge and Cheems. Doge (Dogecoin, much wow etc) is brave and strong. Cheems is cowardly and useless.

    I would resize this image if I could. And yes, I know the image resize option exists. But it isn't actually resizing.

Reply
pete12
2
0

Techno pessimism is trendy, snark is trendy, climate doomerism is trendy. There’s also a time honored tradition of using newspaper comment boards specifically for complaining, which predates digital papers (see: letters to the editor). I’d be hard pressed to find anything that moves far off that base rate.

That said, I expected 60/40 positive to negative. This is a super helpful way to see sentiment at a glance and I’d be so excited to see a compilation extended across other articles (ex: the negative Salon piece) and maintained over time.

Reply
West5
1
0

That's a great point. This probably says as much about the psychology of news commenters as it does opinions about longtermism. Comparing comments of different articles would be great for understanding the bias of each. But ultimately, the important messaging questions are probably best answered with proper surveys.

Reply
Bary Levy8
6
4

This reinforces a thought I've had for quite a while: the main advantage of EA is the optimism it brings, and the messaging should incorporate that optimism. "See all these problems in the world? Let's fix them. seriously. Come join us"

Reply
pete3
2
0

Many EAs think there’s a large chance of extinction by 2100, so it’s a qualified optimism at most. Not to rain on your parade - I feel optimism that EA exists and it’s my own optimism that drew me to EA.

Reply
JasperGo7
0
0

I'm not sure if I expected more positive comments. Some of the comments certainly disagree heavily ("ivory tower BS", "future people don't matter"), but most of the skeptical clusters don't seem to fundamentally disagree with longtermism. Maybe learned helplessness (or Cheems mindset, sure), or something akin to a filter bubble where you learn about global problems but are not exposed to the (admittedly) fringe approaches to solving them. The climate movement is, for example, very good at spreading doom despite a non-catastrophic outlook. I wonder how much future optimism/progress propaganda à la OWID would help to move the opinion of young, liberal, academic people

Reply
Fai6
4
0

I saw the 6 "Animals matter too". I am really glad they raised this. (but could they be EAs? I mean some of them seem certainly not EAs judging from their content, but they could fake it)

Reply
Guy Raveh3
0
0

Nice!

Most of the sceptic ideas look quite good to me, except for the doomerism.

These really made me chuckle:

  • 1 - This idea is un-American
  • 1 - This is all the fault of boomers
  • 1 - Stop blaming boomers
Reply
Sharmake1
2
0

The problem here is that crisis and things going wrong dominates the news, and even if all the stories are true and unbiased (Which is at least weakly the case for the mainstream media.), you will still be horribly wrong about what things matter more, or the prevalence of things going wrong.

Combine this with non-prioritization of crisis, and the doomerism bias explains itself.

Reply
One-time pad2
4
0

People should do shit like this more often!

Reply
Nathan Young2
4
0

A summary, you say..

(I like summaries)

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 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
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
6
Funding and job opportunities, events, and thoughts on professionals (Fieldbuilders newsletter #8)
gergo
· · 3m read
0
0
10
An International Collaborative Hub for Advancing AI Safety Research
Cody Albert
· · 6m read
0
0
45
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
View more