Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Stuart_Armstrong comments on Purchase Fuzzies and Utilons Separately - Less Wrong

75 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 01 April 2009 09:51AM

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

Comments (85)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 01 April 2009 10:14:21AM 8 points [-]

By coincidence, I already do this - donating two hours a week to a local charity for children with learning difficulties, and donating cash to the Gates foundation (they seem much better qualified than me to calculate the expected return on charity investement), and a portion of the charity donations from my upcoming wedding is earmarked for the "establishement at which Eliezer works". I actually did it following the logic of this post, so it wan't a coincidence either.

This may be the good reaction for rationalists, but how do you feel about it, Eliezer, from your position in the non-profit sector? Do you think you should be teaching people to divide up their fuzzies and utilons, or making your non-profit more fuzzy?

Comment author: MichaelVassar 01 April 2009 07:14:16PM 7 points [-]

Givewell and its recommended charities probably strictly dominate the Gates foundation, except possibly for affiliation benefits with Gates (like cheering a sports team with a powerful star player). Gates isn't obviously cool enough to want to affiliate with publicly though. Clinton giving initiative is probably a better choice.

Wedding? Yeah, probably do that right. I may have made a mistake by not doing so and thus greatly antagonizing my blood relatives.

Nameless org. Consider contacting me before large donations so I can inform you of any ways to leverage them, and keep in touch via their blog.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 02 April 2009 03:38:38AM 0 points [-]

I'm wondering a little bit about all this beating-around-the-bush: I know what nameless org is a reference to, but it seems likely that some readers won't. You guys are talking about the forbidden topic (and Eliezer touches on it indirectly), so I'm not sure how the spirit of the ban is being fulfilled. Can we speak in plain terms now that April has arrived, or have I forgotten its expiration date?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 April 2009 07:21:18AM 0 points [-]

It expires in May. See the About page.

Comment author: taryneast 05 January 2011 10:26:41PM *  2 points [-]

um, is it ok to ask what is this forbidden topic on a nameless org, now that the equally unexplained ban has been expired for seven months... ? :)

(the about page does not appear enlightening)...

Comment author: arundelo 05 January 2011 10:50:07PM *  2 points [-]


When Less Wrong starts up, it will, by my own request, impose a two-month moratorium on discussion of "Friendly AI" and other Singularity/intelligence explosion-related topics.

Edit: The "nameless org" of course is SIAI.

Comment author: taryneast 06 January 2011 09:41:36AM 1 point [-]

Thank you :)

I had guessed that SIAI was the likely answer... but had very little evidence beyond the fact that it's an org that is strongly correlated with EY :)