4405Joined Jul 2016


Topic Contributions

So, out of your list of 5 organizations, 4 of them were really very much quite bad for the world, by my lights, and if you were to find yourself to be on track to having a similar balance of good and evil done in your life, I really would encourage you to stop and do something less impactful on the world. 

This view is myopic (doesn't consider the nth-order effects of the projects) and ahistorical (compares them to present-day moral standards rather than the counterfactuals of the time). 

Your previous post demonstrated much stronger reasons to not trust you than those you accused of being untrustworthy. 

... strikes me as "not nice" fwiw, though overall it's been cool to see how you've both engaged with this conversation.

Probably Good is a reasonable counterexample to my model here (though it's not really a direct competitor – they're aiming at a different audience and consulted with 80k on how to structure the project).  

It'll be interesting to see how its relationships with 80k and Open Phil develop as we enter a funding contraction. 

I'm curious to read some of the reasoning of those who disagreed with this, as I'm currently high-conviction on these recommendations but feel open to updating substantially (strong beliefs weakly held). 

If you or me or anyone else wanted to start our own organisation under a new brand with similar goals to CEA or GWWC I don't think anyone would try to stop us!

My model is that no one would try to formally stop this effort (i.e. via a lawsuit), though it would receive substantial pushback in the form of: 

  • Private communication discouraging the effort 
  • Organizers of the effort excluded and/or removed from coordinating fora, such as EA slack groups 
  • Public writing suggesting that the effort be rolled into the existing EA movement 
  • Attempts (by professional EAs) to minimize the funding directed to the effort from traditional EA funders (i.e. the effort would be viewed as a competitor for funding) 

I don't follow what you're pointing to with "beholden to the will of every single participant in this community."

My point is that CEA was established as a centralizing  organization to coordinate the actions and branding of the then-nascent EA community. 

Whereas Luke's phrasing suggests that CEA drove the creation of the EA community, i.e. CEA was created and then the community sprung up around it. 

CEA was setup before there was an EA movement (the term "effective altruism" was invented while setting up CEA to support GWWC/80,000 Hours).

The coinage of a name for a movement is different from the establishment of that movement. 

Another conflict-of-interest vector is that EVF board members could influence funding to EVF sub-orgs via other positions they hold, e.g. Open Phil (where Claire Zabel works as a senior program officer) funds CEA (a sub-org of EVF, where Claire is a board member).  

Load More