A really good piece. However, I found this baffling: "Like libertarians before them, EAs just want to make arguments, they don’t actually want to do the dirty work of self-defense." Libertarians are famously argumentative and not softies. Despite small numbers, they also engage in practical self-defense by funding and organizing policy foundations. They are limited in their means of retaliation and opposition because they oppose coercion. But I would hardly say they don't want to do the work of self-defense. If you mean that they don't push hard to take over academia and education, fair enough, but that's just as true of Republicans. And libertarians are such a small fraction of the population that such a move is unrealistic.
Can we live in a world with the burden of proof being on AI regulation but being thoughtful about the harm technology can do? As one critic of utilitarianism pointed out "What's the use of use?" Are we accelerating just for the sake of accelerating?
The better critique of long-termism is that it makes one a "Time Imperialist"—projecting current moral values onto future generations while failing to account for improvements in moral knowledge over time. For ex., a 1800s effective altruist could have advocated benefiting future whites while keeping blacks enslaved, unable to foresee the moral repugnance of slavery. (This podcast explains the concept further: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4H3O6qPntgtb0wfalzrFup?si=f582324fce254dd6)
You missed the main criticism of EA which is altruism's premise of subordinating one's own interests to help others. The Selfish pursuit of solving problems that genuinely interest oneself actually drives more rapid societal progress, benefiting everyone, including future generations. (see https://news.criticalrationalism.org/p/3-why-altruism-is-evil)
What exactly do we mean by progress in this context? While Effective Altruism aims to maximize positive impact, we must also consider the potential negative externalities of achieving significant milestones. For instance, advancements like Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) hold tremendous promise but also come with substantial risks. How do we balance the pursuit of such transformative goals with the need to mitigate potential adverse effects?
As we strive to direct resources and efforts more strategically, it’s crucial to not only focus on the immediate benefits but also to anticipate and manage the broader implications of our successes. This holistic approach to progress will be key in ensuring that our endeavors lead to a truly better world.
It looks like early in the piece you are mixing up Sam Altman and Sam Bankman-Fried. Perhaps you are not but it does read that way to me. "If SBF didn’t kill EA outright, it seems like the Open AI debacle put the nail in the coffin, somehow making Sam Altman look like an E/acc hero in the process..." But maybe it's just me...
A really good piece. However, I found this baffling: "Like libertarians before them, EAs just want to make arguments, they don’t actually want to do the dirty work of self-defense." Libertarians are famously argumentative and not softies. Despite small numbers, they also engage in practical self-defense by funding and organizing policy foundations. They are limited in their means of retaliation and opposition because they oppose coercion. But I would hardly say they don't want to do the work of self-defense. If you mean that they don't push hard to take over academia and education, fair enough, but that's just as true of Republicans. And libertarians are such a small fraction of the population that such a move is unrealistic.
I think this is a more legitimate criticism of e/acc - https://thezvi.substack.com/p/based-beff-jezos-and-the-accelerationists
Can we live in a world with the burden of proof being on AI regulation but being thoughtful about the harm technology can do? As one critic of utilitarianism pointed out "What's the use of use?" Are we accelerating just for the sake of accelerating?
Always a fan of your writing.
The better critique of long-termism is that it makes one a "Time Imperialist"—projecting current moral values onto future generations while failing to account for improvements in moral knowledge over time. For ex., a 1800s effective altruist could have advocated benefiting future whites while keeping blacks enslaved, unable to foresee the moral repugnance of slavery. (This podcast explains the concept further: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4H3O6qPntgtb0wfalzrFup?si=f582324fce254dd6)
You missed the main criticism of EA which is altruism's premise of subordinating one's own interests to help others. The Selfish pursuit of solving problems that genuinely interest oneself actually drives more rapid societal progress, benefiting everyone, including future generations. (see https://news.criticalrationalism.org/p/3-why-altruism-is-evil)
What exactly do we mean by progress in this context? While Effective Altruism aims to maximize positive impact, we must also consider the potential negative externalities of achieving significant milestones. For instance, advancements like Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) hold tremendous promise but also come with substantial risks. How do we balance the pursuit of such transformative goals with the need to mitigate potential adverse effects?
As we strive to direct resources and efforts more strategically, it’s crucial to not only focus on the immediate benefits but also to anticipate and manage the broader implications of our successes. This holistic approach to progress will be key in ensuring that our endeavors lead to a truly better world.
I wrote a bit about this here: I wrote a post about this a while ago: https://animamundi.substack.com/p/a-criticism-of-marc-andreessens-techno
and alos we are building a new charity (EA) organisation: https://www.divadonate.xyz/
It looks like early in the piece you are mixing up Sam Altman and Sam Bankman-Fried. Perhaps you are not but it does read that way to me. "If SBF didn’t kill EA outright, it seems like the Open AI debacle put the nail in the coffin, somehow making Sam Altman look like an E/acc hero in the process..." But maybe it's just me...