Comment by I_Am_Nous | Hacker News Reader

Comment by I_Am_Nous | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is kind of hard to discuss since it seems like SBF didn't engage in EA "in good faith" and we can't really know if other billionaires are either. It does make it easy to discount EA because of the FTX debacle, but I guess if it was so easy to discount then maybe EA true believers weren't actually doing anything to offset that black eye.

More than anything it seems like billionaires are trying to convince us to let them hold future monopolies because we just should, ok?

>I think the best part of conservative philosophy is the skepticism that any small group of experts knows best or can direct the course of history for the long term

It's a double edged sword for sure. On one hand, if "conservatism" is about resisting change for the sake of change alone it can restrict our growth as a society. On the other hand, changing something on the basis of the newest group of "experts" deciding we should is something that DOES need pushback in many cases. It really just underscores how society needs all kinds of people coming to consensus to be functional.

As long as society attempts to come together and reach consensus on important things, I don't think we need to be saved by billionaires :)

> This is kind of hard to discuss since it seems like SBF didn't engage in EA "in good faith" and we can't really know if other billionaires are either.

I wonder if EA could ever be implemented in a way that proves or disproves it as a viable strategy? It seems to me that the inherent problem is that people will always behave in subtle and not-subtle self-interested ways that make "true" altruistic behavior devilishly difficult to carry out in the real world (especially under the conditions that arise granting you the billions to carry the philosophy out). And therefore almost impossible to falsify.

Sort of reminds me of the old adage, "Communism cannot fail, it can only be failed." With some people today exclaiming that true Marxism has never been tried. But I can't imagine what perfect conditions could exist that would allow either communism or EA to be carried out, without having to account for human nature in the end.

I think the best interpretation of EA is still "Effective altruism is a question" (which I believe is more or less the original interpretation): how can you do the most (in my opinion, reasonable) good (within a budget)? It's trying to separate feeling good about doing a small act, versus simply pausing to think about what is effective.

Sure, people will converge on claimed solutions to that question. But you can give your own solution[1] (I myself am an EA and disagree on some points, including giving locally in my third world country, and volunteering). The perspective is really valuable I think.

Now that said indeed, don't try to make money at all costs in order to donate. First that can easily fail and be a direct net negative, and second there are secondary effects like losing trust and unexpected side effects on other people. Being honest and trustworthy is a really good idea.

[1] Recently Give Directly dropped out of Givewell's top charities, for probably understandable reasons; I still like Give Directly and still give. Just get informed and give well! (to Givewell or not :P)

Galacta7 hinted at it with the discussion of failing Communism -- there can be plenty of excellent philosophies on paper but once they enter the real world it doesn't matter how altruistic the philosophy is on paper if it's twisted by a single person when they gain control of the real world in some way.

I am not against the philosophy that there are optimal ways to help, and less optimal ways to help. I'm not against the philosophy that tries to weigh the best of the available options. I am against the philosophy that then arrogantly says "This is the best and only way to move forward for the best utility to humanity" as if they are able to see the future.

I don't doubt you have opinions on how to best help humanity, and that's great! As you said, the perspective that we only have a limited amount of utility we can provide for ourselves or the benefit of others, and we must be wise in how we use it is a good one to have. It's the same wisdom that helps me see that I can't give my rent money to another person and tell my family "tough luck" when we get evicted.

On the other hand I feel like utilitarianism can easily lead to decision overload when applied to everyday life. So it's a lens to view the world through but can't be a holistic principle that guides your entire life or you'd never get anything accomplished.

The fact that it's utilitarian is already a red flag for me, because you have to start making judgements about the expected utility output of helping one person over another. Italy had to coldly adopt this mindset when prioritizing care during COVID-19. It has use cases such as ensuring the future workforce and viability of a country in the face of limited healthcare but nobody wants to hear their expected utility is too low to be "worth" helping.

Believing that's the way we should view and calculate every aspect of life feels like a bad mixture of egotism (like Musk believing he's the only one who can save humanity long term) and and, weirdly, a selfishness that the utilitarian's utility is sacred and should only be "spent wisely" and not "wasted."

I find similarities to how many businesses close because they aren't making infinite growth anymore, or scrapping a mostly-complete 80% project (which could be used as-is) since that last %20 is hard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com