Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by EffAlt
1 min read 3

7

Cause prioritizationCommunityEffective altruism lifestyleMotivational
Frontpage

From this present moment, a person without any extraordinary superpowers sets off to change the world positively as much as they can. This person changes the world more than anyone else.

What do they do?

Your writing should talk about a person who changes the world more than any other person who is also writing about this prompt. (It’s a competition of sorts)

Challenge yourself to imagine what actions that person takes and to give a realistic but idealistic narrative of the roadmap they take)

How much impact could they have?

How many lives could they affect?

How many lives could they save?

I’m super excited to read the responses.

STOP READING THIS POST HERE IF YOU PLAN TO DO THE PROMPT (spoiler below)

The reason I did not want you to see this question before you wrote the writing is in the hope to remove the bias from the writing.

The question is: What is stopping you from living that path that you see as most optimal?

(Be honest and serious, I’m looking to help remove the blockage for the stories I resonate with and believe in)

7

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments3


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Alexander Herwix 🔸3
0
0

I think the main drawback of this approach is that there is no “average person”. Every person is a unique combination across a broad range of characteristics.

The classic example is the story of how the Airforce first designed the fighter jet cockpits to fit the average fighter pilot but got complaints from the pilots that this didn’t work too well for them. Upon investigating it turned out that there was no pilot in the entire airforce that fit the average pilot used to design the cockpit. They changed their strategy and now allow for multiple ways of adjusting the cockpit to the individual characteristics of the pilots. The rest is history.

I think what this tells us that there are indeed many possibilities for how to be in this world and we all have a unique vantage point on life that no one had but us. Thus, it may not really be about “what should I be” but “what can I offer”.

Reply
AltruismAgency3
2
0

I am going to write this, except actually taking extra time on it (and I read the spoiler, sorry lol)

I would agree, this is in line with the most important question (or the main question we as humans have) of "What should I be doing".

It's a good framework to really look at life, see the highest path, and ask "what is stopping me?"

Hope other people reply. Feel like every EA should write this article when they join, and then update it along the way as they learn more.

Reply
QubitSwarm992
0
0

Every time I think about how I can do the most good, I am burdened by questions roughly like

  • How should value be measured? 
  • How should well-being be measured? 
  • How might my actions engender unintended, harmful outcomes? 
  • How can my impact be measured? 

I do not have good answers to these questions, but I would bet on some actions being positively impactful on the net.

For example

  • Promoting vegetarianism or veganism
  • Providing medicine and resources to those in poverty
  • Building robust political institutions in developing countries
  • Promoting policy to monitor develops in AI

W.r.t. the action that is most  positively impactful, my intuition is that it would take the form of safeguarding humanity's future or protecting life on Earth. 

Some possible actions that might fit this bill:  

  • Work that robustly illustrates the theoretical limits of the dangers from and capabilities of superintelligence.
  • Work that accurately encodes human values digitally  
  • A global surveillance system  for human and machine threats
  • A system that protects Earth from solar weather and NEOs

The problem here is that some of these actions might spawn harm, particularly (2) and (3). 

Reply
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Community
20
(How) can we help the EA-space with our MEL/impact Consulting best?
Q
Teresa Jakovlev
· · 1m read
6
6
20
Free Habit Change Coaching
John Salter
· · 2m read
0
0
40
Feedback requested: Financial Independence Purpose Planner tool
Rebecca Herbst
· · 5m read
2
2
View more