mhendricđ¸
Posts 3
Comments62
I love your blog and reliably find it to provide the highest-quality EA criticism I have found. I shifted my view on a handful of issues based on it.
It may be helpful for non-philosophy readers to know that the journals these paper are published in are very impressive. For example, Ethics (Mistakes in Moral Math of Longtermism paper) is the most well-regarded ethics journal I know of in our discipline, akin to e.g. what Science or Nature would be for a natural scientist.
I am somewhat disheartened that those papers did not gain visible uptake from key players in the EA space (e.g. 80K, Openphil), especially since it was published when most EA organizations strike me as moving strongly towards longtermism/AI risk. My sense is that it was briefly acknowledged, then simply ignored. I don't think that the same would have happened with e.g. a Science or Nature paper.
To stick with the Mistakes in Moral Math paper, for example: I think it puts forward a very strong argument against the very few explicit numerical models of EV calculations for longtermist causes. A natural longtermist response would be to either adjust models or present new models, incorporating factors such as background risk that are currently not factored in. I have not seen any such models. Rather, I feel like longtermist pitches often get very handwavey when pressed on explicit EV models that compare their interventions to e.g. AMF or Give Directly. I take it to be a central pitch of your paper that it is very bad that we have almost no explicit numerical models, and that those we have neglect crucial factors_. To me, it seems like that very valid criticism went largely unheard. I have not seen new numerical EV calculations for longtermist causes since publication. This may of course be a me problem - please send me any such comparative analyses you know!
I don't want to end on such a gloomy note - even if I were right that these criticisms are valid, and that EA fails to update on them, I am very happy that you do this work. Other critics often strike me as arguing in bad faith or being fundamentally misinformed - it is good to have a good-faith, quality critique to discuss with people. And in my EA-adjacent house, we often discuss your work over beers and food and greatly enjoy it haha. Please keep it coming!
I am organizing a fundraising competition between Philosophy Departments for AMF.
You can find it here: https://www.againstmalaria.com/FundraiserGroup.aspx?FundraiserID=9191
Previous editions have netted (badum-tschak) roughly $40.000:
https://www.againstmalaria.com/FundraiserGroup.aspx?FundraiserID=9189
Any contributions are very welcome, as is sharing the fundraiser. A more official-looking announcement is on Dailynous, a central blog of academic philosophy: people found this ideal for sharing via e.g. department listservs.
https://dailynous.com/2024/12/02/philosophers-against-malaria-a-fundraising-competition/
These are relatively low-effort to set up - I spend maybe 10-20h a year on them. If you are interested in setting up a similar thing for your discipline/social circles, feel very welcome to reach out for help.
Great to hear the second round was successful. Given an anonymous AI org is taking up half of the budget, I wonder what the overall approach of the org is, what makes you think you're the best-suited funder for it, or what reasons led to granting anonymity to the organization. If there's anything you'd be willing to share on any of these, it'd be greatly appreciated!
I think you are being unrealistically harsh on yourself. If I understand you correctly, you donate x% to a charity, and are now adding even more money by selling used manga. You wonder whether this is just an elaborate way of justifying your manga consumption.
I don't see why your manga consumption would require any justification! If physical manga are something you enjoy, it is completely fine to enjoy them. Selling them afterwards to donate more to charity seems like a good move that combines something you like and a way to go above and beyond in your donations.
The question of why not more donations can always be asked, and this will lead to unrealistically high expectations, miserable lives and burnt-out EAs, all of which is not the most effective way to be. Hence, we set artificial points such as 10% of income (1% for students) as a point to no longer feel obliged to worry about donations. That you seem to have found a way to go above and beyond that point while allowing you to pursue a hobby is not weird or immoral, but rather laudable!
This was an interesting read, and it makes me more excited to recommend LEAF to young people. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
I mainly work with university students but sometimes do small work at high schools. What would you consider useful or underappreciated ways of supporting high school students that seem curious about EA related ideas, aside from LEAF? What are the kinds of advice or mentorship that you'd expect to be most needed or most useful?
I really liked this post, and found the second half of it especially insightful.