[chronofar]

Babies and bathwater.

The philosophical underpinnings of AI Safety and Effective Altruism absolutely have merit and warrant consideration. Of course as with most things human group/tribal tendencies can tend to overwhelm such underpinnings rather quickly, and it should be no surprise when it turns out individuals who broadcasted belonging to x or y group turned out to be less than trustworthy (or merely incorrect/misguided) along various dimensions.

We can critique the specific actions or beliefs of such actors and question broad labels worn as badges without casting dispersions on a wide swath of potential tenets that may fit into such a label as "complete BS".

[mejutoco]

I think EA is at its essence "the end justify the means", but communicated in a less simple way. I do not see what is so interesting or novel about it.

[chronofar]

Not really at all, if we were to try and reduce EA to a pithy one-liner it would be more like "if one aspires to do good (altruism), one should use evidenced based data to determine how they can do the most good with their limited resources (effective)."

[rapnie]

The danger of those broad terms when they become trendy is how effective they are as a facade for all kinds of malpractices to hide behind and fester. A term popular some time ago was "Microfinancing". On TV you witnessed celebrities proudly micro-investing directly in people with few financial means. But for ruthless types it was also a way to put naive people in severe debt with extortionary loans. "UBI" is another such term, with a lot of well-meaning proponents. And sometimes advocates one wouldn't expect. For UBI I wonder if the abuse may lie in how it can lull people to sleep, while pervasive use of AI eats into the low(er)-skilled labor markets.

[pasabagi]

If you ask anybody who a) isn't part of EA and b) has philosophy training, they'll tell you EA is just utilitarianism with some new buzzwords.

[throwaway1249]

In my opinion, if we consider the simplest definition of Effective Altruism (EA), which is 'think about the most effective way to give to charity,' it differs from utilitarianism in a couple of ways:

Firstly, it's more pragmatic because it acknowledges our personal biases. Second, it's an individual practice, unlike utilitarianism, which is typically associated with broader societal or governmental actions.

I really appreciate this approach to altruism. It doesn’t force a moral standard on others. I like practicing it on a small scale, recognizing my biases. Just the act of thinking about how to best help my community is better than giving randomly. This approach also helps to see the world as a place with more love than what we often see in the news.

However, I have concerns about the more widespread version of EA, which seems to be about gaining as much money and power as possible while appearing altruistic. This, in my view, is more akin to a personality disorder, like narcissism, than to utilitarianism.

I've been using the term EA to describe this, but it might not align with what others think EA is. For me, it's a personal habit I try to maintain, but I don't let it define who I am.