All of Brad West's Comments + Replies

I messaged you. Good for you for looking to make a difference and develop your knowledge/skills.

One way of thinking about the role is how varying degrees of competence correspond with outcomes. 

You could imagine a lot of roles have more of a satisficer quality- if a sufficient degree of competence is met, the vast majority of the value possible from that role is met. Higher degrees of excellence would have only marginal value increases; insufficient competence could reduce value dramatically. In such a situation, risk-aversion makes a ton of sense: the potential benefit of getting grand slam placements is very small in relation to the harm cause... (read more)

Yeah, a lot of interventions/causes/worldviews that have power in EA will have more than adequate resources to do what they are trying to do. This is why, to some extent, "getting a job at an EA org" may not be a particularly high EV move because it is not clear that the counterfactual employee would be worse than you (although, this reasoning is somewhat weakened by the fact that you could ostensibly free an aligned person to do other work, and so on).

Lending your abilities and resources to promising causes/etc. that do not have power behind them is proba... (read more)

I had thought a public list that emphasized potential Impact of different interventions and the likely costs associated with discovering the actual impact would be great.

Reading through your articles, I can't help but share your concern especially because of how potentially fragile people's important and impactful altruistic decisions might be.

If my family is making 100k and they are choosing to designate 10% of that annually to effective charities, that represents vacations that are not had, savings that are not made, a few less luxuries, etc. I may be looking for a permission structure to eliminate or reduce my giving. This is probably even more true if I am only considering donation of a significant portion of my income... (read more)

SBF likely had mixed motives, in that there was likely at least some degree to which he acted in order to further his own well-being or with partiality toward the well-being of certain entities (such as his parents). The reasoning that you mentioned above (privileging your own interests instrumentally rather than terminally such that you as an agent can perform better) is a fraught manner of thinking with extremely high risk for motivated reasoning. However, I think that it is one that serious altruists need to engage with in good faith. To not do so would... (read more)

To clarify, you would sacrifice consistency to achieve a more just result in an individual case, right?

But if there could be consistently applied, just, results, this would be the ideal result...

I don't understand the disagree votes if I am understanding correctly.

Please note that my previous post took the following positions:

1. That SBF did terrible acts that harmed people.

2. That it was necessary that he be punished. To the extent that it wasn't implied by the previous comment, I clarify that what he did was illegal (EDIT: which would involve a finding of culpable mental states that would imply that his wrongdoing was no innocent or negligent mistake).

3. The post doesn't even take a position as to whether the 25 years is an appropriate sentence.

All of the preceding is consistent with the proposition that he also a... (read more)

SBF did terrible acts from many different moral viewpoints, including that of consequentialism. In addition to those he directly harmed, he harmed the EA movement.

However, from review of what I have read, it seems as if he acted from a sincere desire to better the world and did so to the best of his (quite poor) judgment. Thus, to me, his punishment is a tragedy, though a necessary one. From a matter of ultimate culpability, I don't know if I would judge him more harshly than the vast majority of people in the developed world: those having the capability t... (read more)

There's a lot of competition the "frontpage" regarding linked articles and direct posts by forum participants. I can understand why people would  think this article should not be displacing other things. I do not understand this fetishization of criticism of EA.

For comparison, a link to an article by Peter Singer on businesses like Humanitix with charities in the shareholder position with some commentary that benefit charities got 16 cumulative karma. I don't understand why every self-flagellating post has to be a top post.

One thought re self-funding charities is that it might best for entities to focus on what they are best at: charities on interventions and for-profit businesses on providing goods and services to consumers or businesses. 

A model that funds charities while enabling entities to focus on what they do best is Profit for Good, in which charities are in the vast majority shareholder position of for-profit companies. I explain why I believe that this model could be quite powerful in my TEDx Talk here:

 

I was contemplating writing something similar... The question of whether a person is worthy of all the "praise credit" is different than the question of whether the valuable outcome is causally attributable to the agent.

Definitely agree that ETG is very much underrated. I think if you are looking to maximize your impact, you should be looking at how you can bring something to the table in terms of skills/knowledge/insight/etc that money cannot buy or is very difficult/costly for money to buy. Something like this might be building of specialized research skills/knowledge, connections, influence, idea development/cultivation. I am a bit skeptical that generally working for a high impact org in positions with skills that are available in the general employment market is, in ... (read more)

Yeah, I think the crux is that you want to weight counterfactual analysis less and myself and EAs generally think this is the ultimate question (at least to the extent consequentialism is motivating our actions as opposed to non-consequentialist moral considerations).

I think that the way to evaluate Alec's impact is to say, if Alec had not taken action, would those thousand people be dead or would they be alive? (in this hypothetical, I'm assuming Alec is playing a founder role regarding a new intervention). Regarding the twenty other people, ask yourself ... (read more)

Regarding the impact attribution point-

You simply need to try to evaluate the world that would have transpired if not for a specific agent(s) actions. In the case of your vaccine creation and distribution, let's take the individual or team that created the initial vaccine and the companies (and their employees) that manufacture and distribute the vaccines.

If the individual or team did not did not create the initial vaccine, it likely would have been discovered later. On the other hand, if the manufacturers and distributors did not go into that manufacturin... (read more)

Nice post and I agree that we should avoid saying things that might make people feel unwelcome or uncomfortable based on characteristics.

One thing that I bristle at a bit is that I think the exclusion that offhand comments or controversial posts cause is probably dwarfed by orders of magnitude by the exclusion caused by material considerations that prevent minorities (as well as the vast majorities of whites) from being able to contribute to the same degree in EA. If you look around at people at an EAG, you can pretty safely bet that they are not only in c... (read more)

I think the way an EA would view this would still be in terms of the most utility-effective use of their time, however, the opportunity for leverage may significantly impact the calculation, and may enable cost-effective uses of time outside of typical cause areas.

For instance, there might be an EA endorsed charity for which marginal donations would generate utility at a rate of 10 utils/dollar. There might be an organization in the developed world that generates utility at an average rate of 1 util per dollar, and has an average annual budget of $10 milli... (read more)

Wanted to be clear, in your Appendix A, are you suggesting categorically that people not use alcohol, regardless of whether they have reason to believe they are/would be an alcoholic?

I would certainly agree with you that this advice would be prudently taken by alcoholics. 

However, many (most?) people can enjoy alcohol occasionally and in moderations for pleasant experience without this usage causing problems in their lives. If you are someone who occasionally drinks, enjoys it, and this usage isn't causing problems in your life, I think it is advisable to continue occasional, responsible drinking.  

I see people disagree with me. I can see a lot of bases on which people would disagree and it would be interesting to see which ones apply.

1. Because OP's job is technical rather than policy oriented, it is unlikely that a difference in character in the person doing the job would make a difference in outcomes. I might agree in a context where there the occupant of the job might be able to make a difference in policy choice.
2. Taking a job and supporting a morally wrong industry is wrong regardless of whether the same wrong would result counterfactually.
3. The

One thing to consider is that the job will be filled by someone, perhaps without your moral scruples/EA perspective. Is there any benefit to the world by having you or someone with your moral views in that position? Is it likely that the difference in effectiveness between you and the counterfactual will be high (if not, maybe take it and ETG).

I feel like there are a lot of articles about "value pluralism" and such, another one being Tyler Alterman's Effective Altruism in the Garden of Ends. This position appears to be more popular and in vogue than a more traditional utilitarian view that an agent's subjective experiences should not be valued more highly terminally than that of other moral patients.

I would like to see an article (and maybe would write it someday) that we should primarily treat any naive favoritism for our own well-being as agents as instrumental to maximizing well-being, rather than having multiple terminal values. 

Yes, impartiality is the core idea here (which might be more accessible as "equality") , and a lot of the other EA core ideas proceed from this with some modest assumptions. I'm just talking about using language that is more intuitive to connect with people more broadly. I think EA often wants to set itself apart from the rest of the world and emphasizes technical language and such. But a lot of the basic goals and ideas underlying them are pretty accessible and, I think, popular.

I probably could fit in writing a rough version of this for Draft Amnesty Week.

Thanks Nick.

I'll try to find some time to write my thoughts on the matter. I've just been really behind on what I'm trying to do with my nonprofit. It really sucks having to spend most of your time at a full time job that is of very marginal direct value and try to conjure the energy you have left after that to do meaningful and impactful work.

EDIT: to be clear, the full-time job is NOT the nonprofit that I run

I'd mention Elliot Billingsley as an excellent, aligned coach.

I can only aspire to be as good a scout as you, Joseph. Cheers

I agree that advocacy inspired by other-than-EA frameworks is a concern, I just think that the EA community is already quite inclined to express skepticism for new ideas and possible interventions. So, the worry that someone with high degrees of partiality for a particular cause manages to hijack EA resources is much weaker than the concern that potentially promising cases may be ignored because they have an unfortunate messenger. 

Re fiscal sponsorship in the United States: I would definitely encourage small orgs in the U. S. to set up charitable corporations in the state they operate (relatively simple, quick step). From there, if your org anticipates getting 50k or less in funding, you can do an IRS 1023EZ form, which I will link below. It might require some back and forth with the IRS for a few months, but once you get the recognition letter, you can get donations and donors can deduct the amount, with no fees involved.

I don't have experience with fiscal sponsorship, but there ar... (read more)

I would note a consideration in terms of impact. Orgs that are larger, have more resources for better perks, can offer higher pay, and are more prestigious are going to be able to attract stronger applicants, all else being equal. Consequently, your impact is going to be the delta between the world with you in that position in the org and that of the person who would occupy that position. Consequently, your expected impact might be small or negative (or it could be high if you are exceptional at it relative to the second best option). I think EAs in genera... (read more)

I think a lot of the EA community shares your attitude regarding exuberant people looking to advance different cause areas or interventions, which actually concerns me. I am somewhat encouraged by the disagreement with you regarding your comment that makes this disposition more explicit. Currently, I think that EA, in terms of extension of resources, has much more solicitude for thoughts within or adjacent to recognized areas. Furthermore, an ability to fluently convey ones ideas in EA terms or with an EA attitude is important. 

Expanding on jackva re ... (read more)

One way to be to evaluate how much compensation you could achieve from blood plasma donation. You could then donate the funds to charities addressing farmed animal welfare and consider whether those funds being donated has a higher net effect on farmed animal welfare than the harm you are causing by increasing demand for factory-farmed meat by resuming an omnivore diet, the benefit you are not generating by increasing demand for vegan products, and the benefit you are not generating by providing others an example of a vegan, thus helping normalize it.

Yep, I see that you're saying it's unreasonable for Zakat donors to expect their donations not to  influence other funders such that their donations counterfactually predominantly benefit Muslims.

I suppose I am just a bit surprised (and, if Kaleem is correct, gladdened) that such donations that may not have the the counterfactual effect of predominantly benefiting Muslims would still qualify as Zakat. 

I agree with your perspective expressed in the second perspective and further agree that a non-updating charity would be discriminatory and contrary to my values as well.

Not sure I agree with your characterization in the first paragraph. If the spirit of the rule regarding Zakat is that Muslims predominantly benefit, it seems reasonable to question whether an action whose value does not predominantly benefit Muslims (due to the reactions of other actors) is in line with that spirit. If the counterfactual of the world in which you have donated is one in whi... (read more)

I think that Givedirectly, where it has free hands, will try to direct cash to where it can do the most good. If many of the world's poorest are being served by the Zakat program, this will probably affect choices to some extent at a macro or micro level.

For instance, perhaps counterfactually to the Zakat-funded Bangladeshi program, such a program would have been funded with unrestricted funds (such unrestricted funds then being able to go elsewhere).

But I have no special insight into Givedirectly, just the general observation that if you earmark funds for... (read more)

Hi Kaleem,

Sorry, I wrote my previous response quickly.

My response regarded Ian’s proposal that GiveDirectly solve the problem by using Zakat funds to solely benefit Muslims and then using unrestricted funds to benefit non-Muslims (and operating expenses). The problem from the Zakat-funder's perspective is whether or not GiveDirectly would use those earmarked funds to “fung” with its unrestricted funds to benefit non-Muslims. 

Let’s assume GiveDirectly has a goal of maximizing welfare with its money transfers. So, without a separate fund earmarked for M... (read more)

EDIT- see my response to Kaleem for a clearer version of what I say here

One issue with this is it puts GD in a bind with its unrestricted funds if GD wants to be net nondiscriminatory in its payments.

There would be a quantity, X, of Muslim-earmarked funds, such that the entirety of the unrestricted funds going to non-Muslims would have the net effect of the entire pool (earmarked and unrestricted) being disbursed indiscriminately based on need.

However, if the earmarked funds are lower than X, then, if GD wants to avoid be net discriminatory against Muslims... (read more)

I agree with you that the degree of difficulty in going vegan is personal and quite variable. This is one of the reasons I have thought developing an easy way of offsetting through animal welfare donations for meat consumption could be a very effective program.

Deterrence isn't merely about Lightcone being deterred from future action, but also about other parties that are considering saying potentially defamatory things regarding others. If they can see that past defamatory statements carried legal consequences, they may be more inclined to exercise greater care; thus harm from future defamatory statements could be avoided.

What's even more... With a business like Thankyou (or Newman's Own, Patagonia) where a charitable foundation is in the shareholder position there isn't really necessarily a reason that prices would be higher. Basically, all the businesses have shareholders, this business form just capitalizes on the identity of a potentially popular shareholder. The main disadvantage is that it is difficult to raise capital for these businesses, but I think this problem could be overcome if strong evidence can be established for a competitive advantage for Profit for Good ... (read more)

Are you referring to Benefit Corporations? Social Enterprises? The B Corp organization itself? That there are businesses (Newman’s Own, Patagonia, Humanitix, Thankyou) that are PFGs? I don't understand what you're asserting I am totally unaware of.

I don't care if you respond, just don't want comments to suggest my ignorance of such entities.

I would have much less confidence if in the couple years I'd been pursuing this, that I had ever clearly seen the idea explored of this sort of business structure being used as a philanthropic financial leverage tool.

There definitely has been lots of thought about ethical capitalism and other ways of doing business in a better ways. But I haven't seen this sort of weaponization of philanthropic resources... It's like you say, there isn't the capital for it because using money in this way is just not something philanthropists are even thinking about and no ... (read more)

Yeah I hadn't seen that, but he and I are on the same page.

The solution to your tax problem would just be to incorporate the tax benefit from the initial giver into the available amount thay they could get back (eliminating the possibility of a windfall through the program). Then the disbursements of the organization would be distinct... The orgs 501c3 is to facilitate donation to charities by providing this function, thus its disbursements would be in furtherance of its charitable purpose.

Yeah, more of a base fund on steroids that could enable more aggressive giving.

Yeah, you're right perhaps smart financial instruments could be helpful (Yield and Spread could advise). However, I'm not sure sure that there would be products that could be as safe as a broad right to obtain some percent of your former donations.

Still seems like a broader policy could enable significantly more aggressive giving. Base fund's cap of 2k likely wouldn't be sufficient to many donors' concern.

I bet more EAs would be comfortable with giving larger percentages of their income if they felt like they could do so while being responsible to themselves and their families.

It seems like a relatively big hang-up for people in deciding whether or not to donate is the uncertainty of the future. It may be that in 70-90% of their possible futures, their donation did not entail their future hardship, but they want to avoid that 10-30% situation and so donate significantly less.

I thought I recall an organization that would help donors to effective charities that had fallen upon hardship. It seems that an even more solid organization... Maybe one that allows donors to register their donations and entitles them to certain sums if the... (read more)

Yes that's right.

For me, if the answer to #1 is in favor of saving for runway, that disposes of the question. Just need to be careful, as you are aware, of motivated reasoning.

For #2, for me, the good demands all of your money. Of course, you are not going to be the most effective agent if you keep yourself in poverty, so this probably doesn't imply total penury. But insofar as other conscious beings today are capable of positive and negative experiences like you are, it isn't clear why you should privilege your own over those of other conscious beings.

It may be that building runway is, in fact, the best way to do good in the long term. And maybe certain levels of personal consumption make you more able to sustainably do good through your work.

But just engage seriously with the cost of that runway. With straightforward Givewell charities, that might mean someone dies annually that you could have saved.