>One thing I think the post doesn't articulate enough is tradeoffs - what is gained and lost by rejecting status games and judgment. All else equal it would be better having less of these things. The way you describe them. They sound so obviously bad and destructive but I worry that sometimes it's harder to not throw out the baby with the bathwater than it seems.
I worry that the trade-off language smuggles in a way of relating to all this that this other orientation just rejects. And as a result I feel a bit lost.
And don't get me wrong, the he "EA" part of me is like: "Yeah, how good is this orientation for maximizing the good in the world? What are the trade-offs here? You're dodging the hard bit."
And the part that wrote the post is a bit like (toward my own voice, not you): "What the fuck?! I just told you I don't like these judgments, and that they're toxic and corrosive, and here you are coming in with them through the backdoor again. Don't tell me how I should be in pursuit of this thing that you have elevated above all else, including yourself."
I'm not sure if a resolution is a possible. They just seem like fundamentally different ways of orienting to the world, and your self. And I don't know if there is a perspective above them that can make them commensurate somehow. I do know that I do not want to privilege the "EA"/"maximizing" perspective as a default (which I've done for a long time).
>But I have some sense that maybe a lot of times when EA (as a social phenomenon) is going well, it's often because the people involved are locally quite truth-oriented; and when it's going poorly, it's often because the people involved are locally quite good-oriented at the expense of truth-orientation.
I agree with this and had briefly thought about including something like this in the post. I thought of GiveWell as a prime positive example of this kind of thing.
My understanding from the political science literature is that ideas around "punctuated equilibrium" and "critical junctures" are a somewhat well-supported theory about policy-making. The rough model looks something like this (from Wikipedia):
My impression is that "warning shots" fit this framework somewhat well (though it's probably better to talk in terms of "shocks" or "windows of opportunities"; see this comment). We already saw this in the case of ChatGPT, which spurred a flurry of policy-making activity (even though not much ended up sticking). (NB: I don't think the Turing test example or alignment faking paper are shocks in this sense.)
Optimally taking advantage of these windows still requires lots of groundwork. I am unsure what this groundwork ideally looks like.
I'm not sure I understand your question correctly, so please respond if I didn't get it.
You ask: Could your donation be for nothing if we don't meet our fundraising goals. I don't think this is the case. If we don't even meet our minimal goal, we will possibly have to downsize or do so sooner than otherwise. Your donation would still help in those cases. The only scenario I see where your donation "would have been for nothing" is short-term insolvency. This is very unlikely.
Even if there were some scenarios in which your donation "will have been for nothing" in hindsight, I am not sure this is the right way to think about it. Your donation would still have made a difference ex-ante in expectation.
To answer your broader question about "hingey"-ness: I think at the moment is a particularly good and important time to donate CLR compared to the past and also likely compared to the future. That would make this time particularly "hingey".
The Center on Long-term Risk is looking for a Community Manager, to work with Chi Nguyen and me on growing and supporting the community around our mission of reducing risks of astronomical suffering. The application deadline is October 16th. Details and application form on our website here: https://longtermrisk.org/community-manager/
The work in this role will be across areas like event & project management, 1:1 outreach & advising calls, setting up & improving IT infrastructure, writing, giving talks, and attending in-person networking events – depending on the skill set of the successful candidate. Since we are a small team, each person can meaningfully shape our strategy, propose new ideas, and take ownership of projects early. They also have the chance to engage with our research team.
Previous community-building experience is a good demonstration of the relevant skills, but no specific experience or qualifications are required.
It's would also be worth pointing out that most people in this community who hold views that can be categorized as negative utilitarian or suffering-focused don't endorse bringing about human extinction, e.g.:
I am not claiming that these posts/articles have settled the debate, but I think any post on a sensitive topic like this would benefit from including such content.
I do also find a lot of beauty and reverence when opening my mind to all that is EA. Thanks for putting that into words!
Also, Iris Murdoch recently made it onto my book stack! Thanks for the other recs, too :)
>One thing I think the post doesn't articulate enough is tradeoffs - what is gained and lost by rejecting status games and judgment. All else equal it would be better having less of these things. The way you describe them. They sound so obviously bad and destructive but I worry that sometimes it's harder to not throw out the baby with the bathwater than it seems.
I worry that the trade-off language smuggles in a way of relating to all this that this other orientation just rejects. And as a result I feel a bit lost.
And don't get me wrong, the he "EA" part of me is like: "Yeah, how good is this orientation for maximizing the good in the world? What are the trade-offs here? You're dodging the hard bit."
And the part that wrote the post is a bit like (toward my own voice, not you): "What the fuck?! I just told you I don't like these judgments, and that they're toxic and corrosive, and here you are coming in with them through the backdoor again. Don't tell me how I should be in pursuit of this thing that you have elevated above all else, including yourself."
I'm not sure if a resolution is a possible. They just seem like fundamentally different ways of orienting to the world, and your self. And I don't know if there is a perspective above them that can make them commensurate somehow. I do know that I do not want to privilege the "EA"/"maximizing" perspective as a default (which I've done for a long time).
>But I have some sense that maybe a lot of times when EA (as a social phenomenon) is going well, it's often because the people involved are locally quite truth-oriented; and when it's going poorly, it's often because the people involved are locally quite good-oriented at the expense of truth-orientation.
I agree with this and had briefly thought about including something like this in the post. I thought of GiveWell as a prime positive example of this kind of thing.
Thank you! Fixed.
Note: I'm not an expert on this stuff.
My understanding from the political science literature is that ideas around "punctuated equilibrium" and "critical junctures" are a somewhat well-supported theory about policy-making. The rough model looks something like this (from Wikipedia):
Antecedent Conditions ––> Cleavage or Shock ––> Critical Juncture ––> Aftermath ––> Legacy
My impression is that "warning shots" fit this framework somewhat well (though it's probably better to talk in terms of "shocks" or "windows of opportunities"; see this comment). We already saw this in the case of ChatGPT, which spurred a flurry of policy-making activity (even though not much ended up sticking). (NB: I don't think the Turing test example or alignment faking paper are shocks in this sense.)
Optimally taking advantage of these windows still requires lots of groundwork. I am unsure what this groundwork ideally looks like.
I'm not sure I understand your question correctly, so please respond if I didn't get it.
You ask: Could your donation be for nothing if we don't meet our fundraising goals. I don't think this is the case. If we don't even meet our minimal goal, we will possibly have to downsize or do so sooner than otherwise. Your donation would still help in those cases. The only scenario I see where your donation "would have been for nothing" is short-term insolvency. This is very unlikely.
Even if there were some scenarios in which your donation "will have been for nothing" in hindsight, I am not sure this is the right way to think about it. Your donation would still have made a difference ex-ante in expectation.
To answer your broader question about "hingey"-ness: I think at the moment is a particularly good and important time to donate CLR compared to the past and also likely compared to the future. That would make this time particularly "hingey".
The Center on Long-term Risk is looking for a Community Manager, to work with Chi Nguyen and me on growing and supporting the community around our mission of reducing risks of astronomical suffering. The application deadline is October 16th. Details and application form on our website here: https://longtermrisk.org/community-manager/
The work in this role will be across areas like event & project management, 1:1 outreach & advising calls, setting up & improving IT infrastructure, writing, giving talks, and attending in-person networking events – depending on the skill set of the successful candidate. Since we are a small team, each person can meaningfully shape our strategy, propose new ideas, and take ownership of projects early. They also have the chance to engage with our research team.
Previous community-building experience is a good demonstration of the relevant skills, but no specific experience or qualifications are required.
This question has been considered to some extent by people in the community already. Consider the following posts:
It's would also be worth pointing out that most people in this community who hold views that can be categorized as negative utilitarian or suffering-focused don't endorse bringing about human extinction, e.g.:
I am not claiming that these posts/articles have settled the debate, but I think any post on a sensitive topic like this would benefit from including such content.
Yes, the CLR Fund is still accepting applications. I will see that we clarify this in the appropriate places.
Yes.