timtyler comments on On Charities and Linear Utility - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Anatoly_Vorobey 04 February 2011 02:13PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (58)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: timtyler 06 February 2011 07:00:48PM *  2 points [-]

Phil's:

You shouldn't take it as an axiom that the SIAI is the most-beneficial charity in the world. You imply that anyone who thinks otherwise is irrational.

...was questioning XiXiDu's:

If everyone was to take Landsburg's argument seriously, which would imply that all humans were rational, then everyone would solely donate to the SIAI.

...but it isn't clear that the SIAI is the best charity in the world!!! They are in an interesting space - but maybe they are attacking the problem all wrong, lacking in the required skills, occupying the niche of better players - or failing in other ways.

XiXiDu justified making this highly-dubious claim by saying he was trying to avoid getting down-voted - and so wrote something which made his post "sound more agreeable".

Comment author: FAWS 06 February 2011 08:08:37PM *  0 points [-]

SIAI would probably be at least in competition for best charity in the world even if their chance for direct success was zero and their only actual success raising awareness of the problem.

I did a wildly guessing back of the envelope type calculation on that a while ago and even with very conservative estimations of the chance of a negative singularity and completely discounting any effect on the far future as well as any possibility of a positive singularity SIAI scored about 1 saved life per $1000.

Comment author: gwern 06 February 2011 07:11:16PM *  -1 points [-]

Accepting the logical validity of an argument, and flatly denying its soundness, is not an interesting or worthwhile or even good contribution.

Comment author: timtyler 06 February 2011 07:14:34PM *  0 points [-]

What? Where are you suggesting that someone is doing that?

If you are talking about me and your logical argument, that is just not what was being discussed.

The correctness of the axiom concerning charity quality was what was in dispute from the beginning - not any associated logical reasoning.