= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on The Value of Those in Effective Altruism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (14)
I don't suggest to account for 'all factors appropriately' but to not model non-EA as 'close to zero'. Why not be honest and model them as zero on average? That would net you literally infinitely better effectiveness of converting non-EAs. This suggests that there is something wrong with the calculation. The difficulty of converting people to EA depends on how EA-affine they are to begin with. And that has to be taken into account somehow.
I think on average non-EA people are making the world slightly better, guided by various incentive structures - from common sense, to empathy, to efficient markets. But on average people are not committed to making the world as good as it can get through their actions. I think this intentionality on the part of EA participants, their willingness to devote sizable resources to this area, and their willingness to update based on evidence justifies the huge multiple for how much better EAs make the world compared to non-EA people.
However, this is only on average. I certainly would think that some non-EA people have as much of a positive impact as EA participants, if they happen to do things that are EA-aligned, such as support GiveDirectly, MIRI, etc. Or they could be helping the world in other ways, such as pushing for limiting nuclear risk, preventing pandemic risk, etc.