Effective immediately, my wife and I will no longer plan funding for EA or EAs. There’s enough money with OpenPhil to wind down operations gracefully, paying out all current grants, all grants under consideration that we normally would have made, and any new grants that come in within the next three months that we normally would have said yes to (existing charities receiving Open Philanthropy money are particularly encouraged to apply), and providing six months for everyone currently at the non-profit before we shut down.

I want to emphasize that this is not because of anything that Alexander Berger or the rest of the wonderful team at OpenPhil have done. They’re great, and I think that they’ve tried as hard as anyone could to do the best possible work with our money.

It’s the rest of you. I present three primary motivations. They're all somewhat interrelated, but hopefully by presenting three arguments in succession you will update on each of them sequentially. Certainly I've lost all hope in y'all retaining any of the virtues of the rationalist community, rather than just their vices. I hope that this helps you as a community clean up your act while you try to convince someone else to fund this mess. Maybe Bernauld Arnault. That was a joke. Haha, fat chance.

1. In the words of philosopher Liam Kofi Bright, “Why can’t you just be normal?

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DaRvpDHHdaoad9Tfu/critiques-of-prominent-ai-safety-labs-redwood-research

Two of Redwood's leadership team have or have had relationships to an [Open Philanthropy] grant maker. A Redwood board member is married to a different OP grantmaker. A co-CEO of OP is one of the other three board members of Redwood. Additionally, many OP staff work out of Constellation, the office that Redwood runs. OP pays Redwood for use of the space.

Just be normal. Stop having a social community where people live and work and study and sing together, and do social atomization like everybody else. This won’t cause any problems. Everyone else is doing it. There is another way! You don't, actually, need to have more partners than the average American adult has friends.[1]

Also, just don’t have sex. That’s not that much to ask for, is it? I’ve been married for a decade now: I can tell you, it’s perfectly possible.

2. I’m tired of all the criticism. I’m tired of it hitting Asana, which I still love and care about. Moving my donations to instead buying superyachts, artwork, and expanding on an actually fun hobby (giant bonsai) is going to substantially reduce how often my family, friends, and employees sees me getting attacked in one news outlet or another.

3. Pick a cause and stick with it. Have the courage of your convictions. I don't need to spend my time hearing about sea-rats and prisoners and suffering matrices and matrices that are suffering and discount rates and so many different ways human bodies can go wrong in other countries and immigration and housing for techies and so many more. Y'all were supposed to be optimizers, so this donating splitting between different cause areas should end. Like I said, most of my wealth is going into the new super-yacht my wife and I will be commissioning. Maybe then you could stop arguing quite so much. Get it all out of your systems, figure out what the best charity is, and stick with it.

[Addendum: multiple people have mistaken this for having been written by Dustin Moskovitz, for which I apologize. It was written by Keller Scholl, with no input from Dustin.]
 

  1. ^

    Average American adult has three or fewer friends.

47

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Hi Dusten,

Will this yacht replace the Empress of the Seas cruise ship grant, planned to house the new headquarters of Open Philanthropy 2?  Unlike the original cruise ship design, I'm highly skeptical that a yacht will be large enough of a headquarters to house the top-performing 50% of EA.

What part of "no more EA funding" was I not clear enough about? Open Philanthropy 2 will be funded and hosted by someone else with an Open Wallet.

Several people supposedly thought this was written by Dustin so seems worth noting:

[Addendum: multiple people have mistaken this for having been written by Dustin Moskovitz, for which I apologize. It was written by Keller Scholl, with no input from Dustin.]

It's for the good of all of us, except the ones who'll suffer from it.

Because of timezones, the date of this post is displayed as Apr 2nd for me, and I read it while listening to a sad song saying "I've got this funny feeling that the end is near" (From "Mayflower, New york") - making it all a bit funnier

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 Community
46
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read