All of hello_ea_wrong's Comments + Replies

That does not sound like a good goal. It’s too ambiguous and lofty. I realize there are a lot of smart folks associated with the concept of EA but this goal ( good or not) seems more aligned with the White Savior complex with a great deal of humility lacking. We should at least be aware of our limitations: we lack the basic knowledge and tools to even predict let alone change the “world” in the next two years let alone fool ourselves into thinking that “we” (and I mean the self elected saviors in the EA group) are the right people to do it.

It was kinda coo... (read more)

2DirectedEvolution
Why do you think the goal is ambiguous? I'm not sure if this quote is why you think it is ambiguous: But this is questioning our capacity to predict or change the world, rather than whether "putting serious effort into not wiping ourselves out" is a good goal to have. There is a very specific and concrete definition of "wipe ourselves out": the complete extinction of the human species. There are a few other specific cases too, but this is the main one.

It's a bit hard to reconcile the EA community's stance going from "solving malaria with nets + help really sick/dying children" (good!) to the now arbitrary, anything-holds "AI, longtermism, whatever our benevolent leaders and their rich techbro friends get their hands on" (bad? and seemingly dis-humble? if that's a word).

The "future fund" and more of the recent EA stuff screams techbro "visionary" 'we are the chosen saviors of the world and for the future of the world' sort of cultish EA movement? [0] I really don't think this is the right group... (read more)

3jefftk
The basic idea that humanity is worth keeping and we should put serious effort into not wiping ourselves out seems pretty clearly right and important to me? If it doesn't to you, Toby Ord's Precipice makes a very strong case. This doesn't mean that everything people do with the goal of trying to reduce this risk is better than bednet distribution, or even positive, but I do think there are a lot of important things that would seriously reduce risk here and aren't being done. For example, I think Kevin Esvelts' Delay, Detect, Defend biosecurity agenda is very valuable. Overall I think the problem with the FTX implosion was primarily "they were reckless and fraudulent", and this shouldn't affect our views one way or the other on the importance of the causes they publicly endorsed.