Mati_Roy

Comments

Why do we need philanthropy? Can we make it obsolete?

If a non-profit organization is:

  • not solving some public good (in the economic sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics))
  • not redistributing money directly
  • not helping agents that can't help themselves / use money
  • not helping the donor directly
  • relying on donations

Then:

  • it's probably mostly done for signaling purposes and/or misguided
  • it's likely performing worse than the average company
    • although there could be less efficient ways of redistributing money that would arguably be better than the average company
Announcing "Naming What We Can"!

Good thinking. Names and currency (along with status) are one of the few things you have less when others have more, and so benefit from being put on the blockchain

Cash prizes for the best arguments against psychedelics being an EA cause area

so am understanding you have short AI timelines, and so don't think genetic engineering would have time to pay off, but psychedelics would, and that you think it's of similar relevance as working directly on the problem

Cash prizes for the best arguments against psychedelics being an EA cause area

thanks for your answer!

Genetic engineering doesn't seem to have a comparable track record or a comparable evidence base.

You get humans from primates with genetic modifications, not psychedelic :)

Cash prizes for the best arguments against psychedelics being an EA cause area

oh, by bad. apologies. thanks for the quote!

in terms of augmenting humans, my impression is that genetic engineering is by far the most effective intervention. my understanding is that we're currently making a lot of progress in that area, yet some important research aspects seem neglected, and could have a transformative impact on the world.

I wonder if you disagree

Cash prizes for the best arguments against psychedelics being an EA cause area

I feel like the burden of proof is on you, no? how will psychedelics help avoid astronomical waste?

Which effective altruism projects look disingenuous?

I guess I was working on the assumption that it was rare that people would want to split their donation between local and effective a priori, and my point was that GM wasn't useful to people that didn't already want to split their donations in that way before GM's existence -- but maybe this assumption is wrong actually

Which effective altruism projects look disingenuous?

hummm, I guess it's fine after all. I change my mind. People can just give whatever fraction they were going to give to local charities, and then be matched. And the extra matching to effective charities is a signal from the matcher about their model of the world. I don't think someone that was going to give 100% to another charity than those 9 should use GivingMultiplier though (unless they changed their mind about effective charities). But my guess is that this project has good consequences.

Which effective altruism projects look disingenuous?

I'm henceforth offering a MetaGivingMultiplier. It's the same structure than GivingMultiplier, but replace "local charities" with "GivingMultiplier" and "super-effective charities" with "a cryonics organization" (I recommend https://www.alcor.org/rapid/ or https://www.brainpreservation.org/). Anyone wants to take advantage of my donation match?

h/t: came up with this with Haydn Thomas-Rose

Which effective altruism projects look disingenuous?

On handling posts that may violate Forum rules:

Thanks for the clarifications.

On private vs. public communication:

I don't want to argue for what to do in general, but here in particular my "accusation" consists of doing the math. If I got it wrong, am sure other got it wrong too and it would be useful to clarify publicly.

On that note, I've sent this post along to Lucius of the GivingMultiplier team.

Thank you.

Load More