I would generally avoid letting the absorbed opinions of any online community shape your major life decisions (whether that’s rationalists or sneer club)

If they’re paying a lot of money like the AI ones, do it. If not, doesn’t seem worth it

Side note: the global health thing could also be a screen, reference Bill Gates stuff in Africa for this. You might be better off becoming a healthcare navigator or campaigning for single payer somewhere

[deleted]

I think you are not alone if you like EA in the sense of Peter Singer, but dislike EA in the sense of Yudkowsky. It’s a very reasonable position, that many arrive at.

At an EA-affiliated global health initiative you will probably find some rationalist EAs, but you will also find some EAs who are critical of LessWrong rationalism, and somewhat lament how much charity money that could go towards effectively helping poor people is wasted on AI alignment research. And many people working at EA organizations will not have strong opinions about LessWrong rationalism one way or another. Also, the rationalist EAs that you find working at global health initiatives, are probably not the most die-hard rationalist, because why would a die-hard rationalist ever go working for a global health initiative? If someone works at a global health initiative instead of a longtermist or rationalist organization, then that’s a bit of evidence that they maybe care about global health than longtermism or rationalism.

So in terms of culture, you probably have to get along with rationalists and not call them cultists. But at the same time, you will not be a single lonely skeptic in a sea of Yudkowsky fans.

At least if you’re not in the Bay area. If you are going to some EA organization in the Bay area, then expect an increased number of rationalists.

Now what does Electronic Arts have to do with sneerclub

The key insight: Effective Altruism is not necessarily a single thing to do with altruism that is effective.

EA doesn’t own and didn’t originate the ideas of effective charity or of measuring charitable effectiveness.

(also, Singer seems to believe charity workers are fungible and that’s deeply not the case)

so basically, you’re into the life of the overworked and underpaid nonprofit person making their way through the hive of well-meaning scum and villainy.

If the role is branded “EA”, avoid. If you wanna take it anyway, make sure they have a disparaging opinion of the AI cultists. Giving a dot to the AI cultists should be a deal breaker.

So find a global health initiative that isn’t EA affiliated.

One of the frustrating things about EA is that the general idea is fine: if I’m going to give to charity, I would kind of prefer to give to charities that accomplish what I want to get done and maybe those things should be “impactful”. And there’s some point in having a little overhead in helping that along, I guess. But the EAs gotta muck it all up.

I do find myself agreeing with EA that scientifically verified nonprofits tend to be more worth working on than non-tested nonprofits.

Anyway, I hope you’re able to find such a non-profit to work at. Best of luck avoiding the rationalists, it’s really hard to work for and with people that you think are wrong-headed and suck ass.

It’s good to be an altruist, and it’s good to try and be effective in that altruism. The problem with EA now is that they are being ineffective due to incorrect beliefs and values, mostly carried over from the rationalist community. You are the best person to judge whether taking the job will be worthwhile from an altruistic perspective, as you have a better understanding of the pros and cons.

TBH without specific details of the position and organization I don’t think we can offer much advice. There’s good work to be done that largely focuses on accountability and the charity evaluation side of things, but I don’t know how wrapped up the givewell side is with the x-risk lunacy these days, or even if they’re still under the broader EA banner.

Working any job you’re going to have coworkers you disagree with ideologically.

Ask yourself some variation of the following questions:

1. Does the org do necessary work in a moral fashion?
2. Will you be paid what you’re worth?
3. What level of personality drama/office politics do you anticipate and can you deal with that?

Only you can answer those questions and if you can do so satisfactorily then by all means take the job.

Sneer Club isn’t an ideology or a moral position. It’s a bunch of people dunking and shitposting on a bunch of goofballs with too much money and influence and too little in the way of well reasoned ideas.

Some of us do have moral beliefs that inform our shitposting. Some of us are just trash gremlins eating from the dumpster of ::sniff:: ideology. I wouldn’t call myself a member of SneerClub except in the sense of its a subreddit I subscribe to, and neither should you.

Most of us will end up doing some amount of soul-sucking work, if not all of us (I work for Amazon).

The answer to your question will depend on the org, and how much they share the problems described in this subreddit. Optimistically, you may be able to find an org that aligns with your values despite being described as an EA org. After all, I believe the EA motivation attracted many “truly good natured” folks despite the ugly truths of EA in general (in that way, it reminds me of religion). I don’t really know of any such orgs, nor how to even go about filtering them. If you figure it out, let us know, since many of us may be looking for the same criteria.

In short, maybe some org exists that also wants to do what you’re doing, but you’re probably gonna have a lot of BS to weed through.

For a while, I have thought about transitioning to an EA role at one of their nonprofits that I actually agree with, namely global health work. However, after discovering this subreddit about 2 weeks ago, I learned about EA work culture (I was never aware of a lot of the ugly controversies, or parallels with cults)

you clearly know more about the company and what they do w.r.t. global health than anyone else who could give you any advice. if you think the work they do is valid, then that’s all that’s important. don’t let anyone less informed than you steer you away from doing good in the world.

EA is a fine idea at its core that is often ruined because of some dumbasses with a lot of money or influence steer it in the wrong direction (read: longtermism in asinine fields) most of the time. if the work you’re doing is impactful and important don’t let the dumb parts of EA hamstring it. culture fit is whatever–you’ll know immediately

Honestly, I wouldn’t throw my lot in financially with EA people at this stage even apart from any ethical issues! It sounds to me like you would be better off working for a government or a non profit you respect that’s not EA related. EA doesn’t have a monopoly on verification or science.

Aside from the philosophy and all that, it may just not be psychically sustainable. Like academia and the arts, charismatic nonprofits usually have a high ratio of people who really want to devote their lives to the job vs. available resources, so you’re already going to get a life of meager pay for your qualifications, long hours, little respect, lots of stress. But another thing that eats at the souls of nonprofit workers is seeing how much of the operation serves at the personal priorities and whims of megadonors, who buy their way into board meetings and irretrievably tangle up your fundraising motives with your governance needs while you sit there wondering whether this entire patronage-based public welfare system should exist in the first place; that part is going to be even harder for you because you already dislike your donor class. Meanwhile the philosophical part that’s supposed to be the payoff for all this trouble is also going to be a source of tension, because the other people there are also going to be true believers but they follow a different gospel.

Before EA came up with “earn to give” there was the simpler idea of the “checkbook activist”: some people can donate their time to a cause, some can donate useful goods and services, and some can donate money. Unless your career trajectory happens to already point directly toward a specific type of job that’s needed by this nonprofit (are you a credentialed physician? trained fundraiser?), consider the option to develop the most fully actualized version of your whole self (not necessarily the richest version like the EAs say) and set aside free money or time to support others who do have the comparative advantage in those areas.

You’re not going to change them from the inside. You might lie to yourself that you’re doing less harm than another worker taking your place might. You’ll become a worse person. You’re not going to change them from the inside.

if you’re comfortable taking money from grifters like Bankman-Fried and Ellison and likely churning out work that only serves to boost the public image of billionaires, sure, why not

I would lose my mind if these people were my bosses.

I think most EA positions are almost inarguably the morally correct ones (besides the ai stuff), regardless if you think some of their members can be self-righteous assholes

will just piggy back this thread to mention an idea: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/plldw/true_subreddits/ is a thing for a while. maybe there should be some true effective altruist/ longtermist /rationalist … i guess it would look like https://www.reddit.com/r/alltheleft/ but with actual good content.

Whatever you do, I recommend reading “Combatting Cult Mind Control” by Steven Hassan. It’s an extremely good book about the psychology of cults and how they manipulate people. Knowing that should help you avoid manipulation, and it could potentially save you from another unrelated cult in the future.

do you have 40 mil to bribe corrupt chinese officials on hand? if not, your altruism can hardly be considered effective.

Watch Carey Burtt’s short film, Mind Control Made Easy.