= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on What EAO has been doing, what it is planning to do, and why donating to EAO is a good idea - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
Comments (17)
From the post, "This means that we need to start by spreading our values, before talking about implementation." Splitting the difficult "effective" part from the easy "altruism" part this early in the movement is troubling. The path of least resistance is tempting.
Karma for the post is relatively low, and a lot of comments, including the top-rated, can be summarized as "Fun idea, but too crazy to even consider."
The post glosses over the time value of money/charitable donations and the GWWC member quit rate, so I think it's reasonable to say that the Gates Foundation will almost definitely have moved more time value-adjusted money than that of GWWC's members over the next twenty years. Therefore, speculating that GWWC could be a "big deal" comparable to the Gates Foundation in this time frame is overly-optimistic. Still disagree? Let's settle on a discount rate and structure a hypothetical bet, I'll give you better than 20-1 odds.
I don't actually believe this is a big problem in itself, but if the other problems exist it seems like this would exacerbate them.
The post argues that the most effective way to achieve EA goals is to prioritize spreading EA-ish values over making arguments that will appeal only to people whose values are already EA-ish. I don't know whether that's correct, but I fail to see how figuring out what's most effective and don't it could be an abandonment of rationality in any sense that's relevant here. Taking the path of least resistance -- i.e., seeking maximum good done per unit cost -- is pretty much the core of what EA is about, no?
OK. Inevitably some posts will have relatively low karma. On what grounds do you think this shouldn't have been one of them?
I don't think that's at all what the post was assigning a 5% probability to.