In the 1990's to 2010's digital tech was perceived as liberating the masses from government and "business" control of information.

It's quite contrary to the present information environment.

The "1984" ad is from... well duh, 1984. Apple was a small startup in a niche industry back then - fighting against centralization and control by building "a bicycle for the mind" that would push useful computation to the "edge" where it can be controlled by the user.

I don’t think we need zero-sum framing for a lot of the things we talk about, and the fact that we do is the result of politics, not the policies per se.

> Are racism, misogyny, and superstition useful or useless?

Someone can just call you racist, misogynist, or whatever. Those labels don’t mean anything anymore because they’re used as weapons to shut down anyone who is ideologically opposed to you. Are some people racist or misogynistic, yes. But when you use these labels carelessly for anyone who says something you don’t like, you pave the way for actual racists and misogynists because they can call you unreasonable, inaccurate or unreliable.

And what is an apologist, exactly? If you’re unable to come up with a different way to look at something, that doesn’t make someone else who looks at the same thing in a different way an apologist. These are just political smears of the incurious or browbeaters.

Just because the leftists happen to align themselves with pro-social values that I prefer, like anti-racism or anti-misogyny, doesn’t mean they’re right about everything.

It's only known for doomerism and SBF because reporters like the FA author chose to focus on this, and not on, say, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved around the world by EA donors and their recipient organizations.

I gotta say, I'm also pretty annoyed at the guilt-by-association with the SBF thing. If word got out that SBF liked puppies, would his enemies forswear dogs? It seems pretty easy to disavow fraud and even crypto in general (I'm not a fan of crypto), while simultaneously embracing taking a giving pledge, figuring out metrics by which to judge philanthropies, and focusing donations on the effective orgs (by whatever metric makes sense to you). It's like our civilization has lost the ability to hold two ideas in mind at a time, or to think beyond "bad people are bad"

Translation: "The EA folks were talking about AI ethics before it was cool."

If you're implying that my engagement with EA is so shallow as to stop at the name -- you're incorrect. Sorry if I'm unfairly reading this as an ad hominem, but that's how it's coming off.

On the merits, I think you're also wrong. Even beyond the money channeled by the movement, I think the philosophical discourse around how best to help people, what your obligations are to other people, and how to measure effectiveness has been useful and important.

> Amazing how many people get bamboozled by such a simple word trick though.

That's what makes me uneasy about (the little I know of) EA.

Altruism can and does stand alone as a simple human concept (or meme, expressed in English). 'Effective' has got nothing to do with it. On its own, altruism is binary. You either give a thought to the well-being of your fellow man, or you don't. You either concern yourself with the world, or stay as self-centered as you were when you were screaming for attention from the center of your crib.

Adding the word 'effective' is a dilution and distraction from the original bit, and transforms it into a kind of creeping featurism. It invites analysis paralysis. It exhibits premature optimization.

Start by expending a little bit of spiritual energy towards actually becoming altruistic, then we can maybe graduate to an advanced degree in pursuit of effectiveness.

Because a cynical (experienced) person might suspect that the stipulated quest for effectiveness is a semi-conscious avoidance, a delaying tactic meant to push away the pain of subsuming the Self in favor of (undeserving? incoherent? ineffective?) Other.

Harsh thought, yeah, but you'd be amazed what human beings will do to avoid actual spiritual growth.

It seems to me to be a worthy goal for a human, to be altruistic. Like becoming mindful or developing empathy or meditating on the meaning of life. The pain of being ineffective is the baptism of fire. As soon as you consider the needs of others, you realize how powerless you are, in the face of all that need out there. But still you stretch for the goal.

What if I told you that the best and most proven way to effectuate some altruistic goal was to get down on your knees and pray?

No?

Alright, then, how about I send you to Pema Chödrön[0] and invite you to become a bhodisatva, contemplating all beings and sending them love and well-wishes through simple meditative practice?

Believe it or not, both of those practices can be very effective, but their effect will be on you, as you leave the crib behind and expand and extend your ability to consider the well-being of others.

Don't worry about being effective. Just be altruistic. Anybody who invites you to be effective first is just diverting you away from your altruism.

[0] https://www.shambhala.com/pema-chodron/

Do you consider yourself a contrarian?

I think the whole point of EA is to avoid the misery contest and funnel philanthropy dollars in the most effective way, though there's a lot of disagreement inside the movement on what constitutes effectiveness.

On the radical statism -- I guess maybe? At least the in the US right now, we certainly don't have a government that's good at directing money to the most needy. See e.g. the while USAID fiasco. Even if we had a government willing to fund international aid, I still think there is room in the world for people donating to causes they care about. If nothing else, this is how new causes rise to prominence, to be recognized by the official channels.

There's no such thing as "the state" except as a societal arrangement. When you argue that "the state" should decide on who gets what, what you're really saying is that this should be the decision of a few power-crazed career bureaucrats, with no accountability whatsoever or any "skin in the game". At least the plutocrat is paying for the aid out of pocket: he will care somewhat that the money is not outright misused. Why should a random government bureaucrat be trusted to make good decisions?

I don't know of any public EAs who endorsed Elon's crusade against American institutions -- can you name some?

Re: pseudo-alternative to proper public service -- 80,000 hours is product of the EA movement, which aims to steer people to be effective with their career. It was transformative for me at the right moment, and helped me choice between going deeper into FAANG vs devoting my career to causes that matter (though, checking the website now, almost 10 years later, I do wish they were less AI-risk focused).

Re: redistribution -- I think this is an orthogonal concern to EA, and it's unfair to expect a movement focused on altruism and philosophy to also focus on redistribution. FWIW, I am in favor of both EA and redistribution, I don't believe there's any tension between these.

I think the crux of your criticism is, "some people who are bad or whom I don't like endorse EA, or perhaps use EA to justify thair baditude". I think this is a bad argument. For every position you hold, I could find a bad person who endorses it. For instance, you seem to be in favor of redistribution. You know who else was in favor of redistribution? Stalin! And he killed millions of people. This way of thinking is good for one thing and one thing only -- shutting down thought.

I think the world would be a better place if more people donated to charities, especially effective charities. I also, separately, believe in effective government that takes care of it's people, progressive tax rates, and democracy/input. I don't think these beliefs are in conflict.

Also I'm pretty sure that EA as a movement is only concerned with the former mission, and does not advocate for any of the bad policies you're worried about

A pretty key component of a charity being effective is doing things their beneficiaries actually value.

I think you're massively overselling "Moldbug"'s influence. Most on the right today dismiss him for being jewish. Older right-leaning people are mostly stuck on the Facebook/Fox News reservation and don't read essays or blogs, ever, and probably aren't even literate enough to understand Yarvin let alone get talking into monarchism by him.

I will grant that he has influence, but definitely not "massive". Maybe he has traction with tech business elite as some say, I don't have a read on the pulse of that ultra-niche demographic.

In my experience, even the benign kind of nationalism inevitably metastasizes.

> Some reports are putting her net worth at $49,000 or $125,000.

lol

> How he rails against billionaires with a straight face is a mystery.

Not really a mystery. He wants power. The power to assert his will on others, the power to tell others what they may and may not do.

Ah yes, his house on the famous Vermont beach-side.

Even ignoring the fact that owning three houses doesn't make one a billionaire (though I suppose in this market he'd have to at least be a millionaire, but it would depend on how he got the second Vermont house), I'm not sure why you would expect socialists to not welcome a class-traitor from the bourgeoisie? Famously Engels was a nobleman after all.