Thread

1. wodow · 1791146665 · focus · HN ↗

   I was surprised by the weakness of this article, regardless the potential absurdities of parts of EA.

   Why does The Economist consider this the most important issue this week, in a world of complex problems, to splash its first leader on (and more than one page long too)?

   1. __MatrixMan__ · 1791152676 · focus · HN ↗

      Effective altruism, like economics, is mostly a bunch post hoc justifications for bad behavior.

      > Actually, if you think real hard about it, we're the good guys

      --the bad guys

      The economist likes it because it resembles what their target audience tells themselves so they can sleep at night.

      1. lanfeust6 · 1791157677 · focus · HN ↗

         The guys who were obsessed with maximizing efficacy of charitable giving, and then later AI risk, are "justifying bad behavior". Right.

         1. cgio · 1791158088 · focus · HN ↗

            I am not familiar with their beliefs (open to learning). But what circulates is troubling. E.g. statistically optimising for future even if it means harming current can be bad dressed in an excuse. Assigning value e.g. to lives (from prawns to humans) can also be a statistical way to do harm with an excuse. Overall, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck…

            1. Loquebantur · 1791159289 · focus · HN ↗

               This reads more like an orchestrated proxy smear campaign to attack the actual thing they're after: the opposition to unrestricted AI.

               1. cgio · 1791161375 · focus · HN ↗

                  The smear campaign will work if that’s all that’s out there. Are they public with their beliefs/principles or does someone need to go through levels of billions valuation to know the truth.

                  1. Loquebantur · 1791168899 · focus · HN ↗

                     The article here pretty much debunks itself given the over-the-top absurdity and irrationality of its "arguments". But of course only when read critically in the first place.

                     1. cgio · 1791169800 · focus · HN ↗

                        When two opposing forces meet, you don’t get truth from either side, you get it by critically looking at what’s left between the lines. And it doesn’t look good for EA if I go by the discussion here. Lots of pushing problematic to crazies and anecdotal altruism that is not in any way related to EA principles specifically. I don’t judge. Everyone is entitled to do what they think is best. But we can also be concerned on our side on the impact EAs actions can have on us who are not in agreement with the vagueness of it. And we can say that it is looking as much about altruism as Scientology is about science.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.