28Joined Oct 2022


My philosophical axioms that are relevant for EA are largely utilitarian as long as that doesn't interfere with truthfulness. To be clear though I am not a moral realist!

My interests are:


-animal welfare

-politics (unfortunately)

-intelligence research


I thought it might be helpful to share this article. The title speaks for itself.


How to Legalize Prediction Markets

What you (yes, you) can do to move humanity forward

So far his e-mail has gotten relatively little media attention, his English Wikipedia page was changed (not the German one though) and there was little social media outrage.

This seems like a pretty good outcome for him. The reasons I can think of why that happened.

  1.  His strategy of preemptively publishing the e-mails worked.
  2.  He has no social media presence which would be the natural place for people to pile up on him.
  3.  He might simply have gotten lucky.
Answer by AithirJan 19, 20230-19

EA should deprioritize human welfare causes i.e. global health (unless it is an existential risk) and global poverty.

My initial comment seemed completely innocent to me. I didn't expect the backlash and don't want to clog this thread further with a discussion that isn't really on topic, so this will be my last reply here. (DM me if you want)

thx @RAB for the reply

To all the people who downvoted. My comment was asking for clarification. If you then downvote it for presumably the same reason you took offense to the Bostrom comment without explaining why this isn't very productive.


@moderators I edited my comment. 

The effect that the rules will have won't be that I(and I assume this is true for others as well) will act the way that you think is proper, instead I will just not engage at all. This isn't just true for this instance (which would be trivial), but in general.

Did I link to an incorrect e-mail or why does this comment have -6 agreement karma? In general it would be helpful if people explained their downvote.

The reason why I don't say "the n-word" as you did is because it can be misleading. I have seen people using it to quote somebody else who just said "negro". So to me saying "the n-word" would violate another (to my mind much more important) norm: 

"Be honest. 

  • Don’t mislead or manipulate."


I try to follow rules I disagree with. However if I violated any rules here then at least they should have been clearer, so I appreciate the ongoing effort.

I am very sceptical that there is a lot you can do about depression. This post explains why. 

The time, effort and money spent in addition to the side effects of anti-depressants make me strongly doubt that treatment attempts are worth it.

I am afraid I don't have a good answer to that. I just find it insufferable when people try to surpress (by the speaker believed to be) true statements for any reasons. My thought process is just that the consequences of a true statement don't change that it is true and so you get to say that it is true. This just feels very natural to me. To psychoanalyze myself a bit, I score relatively high (33/50 - indicting significant Autistic traits) on the Autism-Spectrum Quotient Test and exceptionally low (0th percentile) on the aspect Compassion of OCEAN Agreeableness. 

I think the degree to which you can argue yourself into a different ethical position is limited by your psychological predispositions. People more empathetic than me ironically might just not be able to relate to my position.

Load more