Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Impromptour
2 min read 1

-10

CommunityBuilding effective altruismCriticism of the effective altruism community
Personal Blog

Punchline: Be transparant about your worldview, especially the cultural, and always demand others in the EA community to be so too. Otherwise, we'll forever be guilty by association by our own fault of not keeping the alt-right sufficiently at bay.

Many a times has my unconditional love for EA been given a heavy blow by the obscure, occult, implicit proximity of the futurishts (-ish because this is not at all a critique on futurology, I also love that stuff). Were it for a presentation on digital minds and the heat-death of the universe or a conversation about Musk, Grimes or Peter Thiel at an EA event or the seclusionary attitudes of a LW enthousiast.

I really, really, really don’t want to tie my name to anything that has to do with Musk, Grimes, Thiel, The Alt-Right, Transhumanism, Accelerationism, etc. Not fundamentally because they are evil or bad, but because they are obscure, foggy and unaccountable. I really hope people think twice before engaging with such obscurity under the banner of Effective Altruism (I'm looking at you here, US folks).

The future is important, tech is important, the future of tech is important. We all grasp this. Also, the future of tech might very well make the future grand, unrecognisable, unrecognisably grand. We need to take these ideas seriously.

However, I want to remind you that we are united by a desire to ‘help others’, and that ‘openness’ and ‘integrity’ are some of our core values. EA is a place where you can’t hide behind either dogma or an obscure ideology, one you either kept obscure in order not to stand for anything, or one you kept explicitly obscure because you like obscurity.

In the future, please shape EA culture to stay:

  • Engaging
  • Open and honest
  • Low-bar
  • Explainable 
  • Explicit in its values
  • Accountable

Please be less tolerant to:

  • The grandiose
  • The obscure
  • The speculative
  • The intellectualist
  • The elitist
  • The Musk-o-verse and silicon valley culture
  • People who say: ‘I don’t really consider myself an altruïst, I just find x-risk/AI really cool’

Wherever there is the obscure and the futurisht, the alt-right is not far away. I'm not saying that we should avoid all contact with Big Tech, but I do think we can do something about this ever-returning sentence: 'The movement has also remarkably attracted support from tech-billionaires such as...'. Perhaps we should just be a bit more demanding on the virtue-side of things and keep relations a bit more cold and mutually understanding.

Be transparant about your worldview, especially the cultural, and demand others to be too. Otherwise, we'll forever be guilty by association by our own fault of not keeping the alt-right sufficiently at bay.

-10

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments1


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Impromptour1
1
0

Can someone explain the strong downvote?

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 Building effective altruism
2
Apply to become a Futurekind AI Facilitator or Mentor (deadline: April 10)
Jay Luong
· · 2m read
0
0
32
Introducing Effective Accountability: Project and Job Search Accountability Groups
2 authors
· · 2m read
1
1
15
Applications to EAGxCDMX close in a week!
cescorza
· · 2m read
0
0
View more