r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
Turns out Paul was right, EA needs idea people to help spend their 45 billion dollars. (https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/qew0bk/turns_out_paul_was_right_ea_needs_idea_people_to/)
55

Via this article on the dangers of the longtermism philosophy (written by a former longtermist, so a good read if you are new here), I found the article by EA on just how much money they have. (45 billion, of which 1% is donated for use by EA each year).

The ‘which roles are most needed’ made me pull a certain type of face:

We could break down some of the key leadership positions needed to deploy these funds as follows:

  1. Researchers able to come up with ideas for big projects, new cause areas, or other new ways to spend funds on a big scale
  1. EA entrepreneurs/managers/research leads able to run these projects and hire lots of people
  1. Grantmakers able to evaluate these projects

(I was just amazed at the massive amount of money, which they are apparently just looking to grow bigger (guess that is a no on the becoming anti capitalist), and the fact that they seem to have nobody to actually do, nor evaluate the altruism part effectively).

It’s probably worth noting that ~9 billion of that estimate is from just two mega-donors: Dustin Moskovitz and Sam Bankman-Fried. Not really sure if that makes things better or worse, but yeah.

They also seem to be attributing the megadonors' commitments to vague comments in media rather than any sort of binding contract.
Which is pretty funny in that classic Rationalist "not actually going to do the research" way, because isn't figuring out whether this money actually exists and has been committed one of the most important things you could do in an article that claims to be about "how much money do we have and how should we utilize it"?
Dont worry, those who betray the pinky promise will be kicked out of the garden of flourishing, IQ debates, and general niceness.
If the superrational actor would donate in that precise situation, it's the next best thing.

That was a somewhat disturbing read.

There’s a trend in rationalism of sticking to untestable theories, which can of course prove anything you want with the right rationalizing. This looks like a way of encouraging real decision-makes to do that even more than they already do.

> There's a trend in rationalism of sticking to untestable theories well duh because if you claimed something testable there'd no longer be a level playing field between different white tech bros commenting on blogs in their spare time, since anyone who brings data to the discussion will have an unfair advantage. very unsporting and makes it a completely different game but even in the world of actual thinkers, rationalism vs. empiricism is a long-fought war
I am guilty of stating the obvious. Forgot to dress it up in jargon to look original, and add 10,000 words.

sorry this is only partially relevant

longtermism is just a way of pretending to care about things whilst not actually giving a shit about currently existing humans, right? it’s scifi fantasy land?

i ask because it seems pretty obvious that, using the linked article’s example of frank ramsey, stephen jay gould’s famous quote would seem to want to drive their actions towards more egalitarian economic ones?

I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.

I could answer this question, but it has no effect on the lives of any of the ancestors of the ancestors of our ancestors etc. So I'm not going to. Come back when you(r net worth) matter(s). Yeah you can use this kind of logic to justify anything as long as you increase the utility of the future of humanity, or have the right imagined consequences (if they are more consequentialist). I checked the twitter of the seconds articles author, and he was going on a rant how the degrowth movement is bad because we will need the money and industry to do the energy transition. Which I always find a bit annoying. People buying a new ipad every 2 years isn't going help with the energy transition. Such a bad faith interpretation of degrowth and the effects of industry and how it could lead to energy transition. iirc Rationalists are not [a big fan of Jay Gould](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BahoNzY2pzSeM2Dtk/beware-of-stephen-j-gould).
[PZ Myers revisited that a few months ago](https://youtu.be/1ASpyblO60g?t=1114). > You can just do this really simple exercise: Go to any standard evolutionary biology textbook and ask, is Gould buried? Is he gone? Has he been discarded? Tossed into the dustbin of hist---no, he hasn't.
Can the rationalists shut up
https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=51528#p51528
Know why? Is it all because of the Mismeasure of Man, or is there more?
partly that, and partly because SJG was an opponent of evolutionary psychology as an approach, and a huge part of the rationalist shtick is absolutely dependent on evo psych. the fact that he saw connections between evo psych and the stuff he writes about in Mismeasure--very similar connections to the ones the rationalists constantly invoke & then disavow (except when they don't)--is just a coincidence
That'd explain it. I mostly know him from read the Book of Life, but the more I hear about Gould the more I like him.
  1. this is literally Dune, except Paul is a huge nerd (e: Muad’dib and the Methods of Rationality)

  2. the real hitlers are the people we sneered at along the way

  3. what if there are aliens out there and they’re better people than us?

Dune is about the freedom to make your own decisions and ultimately mistakes
But mah golden path. DUNE would be an entirely different (I.e. grimmer) series if Paul were out to maximize the utility of the Universe with no second thoughts. Edit: i have no idea why i capitalized it like that lol

From that article about EA funding:

The current EA portfolio is highly tilted towards Facebook and FTX, and more broadly towards Ethereum/decentralised finance and big U.S. tech companies.

Because when you think of Altruism, you think of Facebook and cryptocurrency. Nothing more altruistic than those!

(yes, I’m aware this is because of who’s donated this money and where it came from. But still, you’d think a group supposedly devoted to thinking about the best ways to Do Good would do some amount of thinking about whether they are investing in companies that are Doing Bad. Which I suppose is the point of the first article.)

But but, we need the money from crypto to fight climate change. ;)
Suggesting EA people care about climate change, funny.
Lol, whoops totally forgot about that for a moment.
Proof-of-work is a way to keep the machines too busy to plan for human extinction/eternal torture, I guess.