Hacker News Reader

A problem is that the "expected value" can easily be inflated via hypothetical scenariosto turn your pet interest into THE ONLY THING ANYONE SHOULD EVER CARE ABOUT AT ALL!!!

Among the "rationalist" crowd, this is commonly done for both AI alignment and longevity.

View on HN

These kinds of things have been pondered in EA circles, lest you think that's a unique gotcha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

And they're not because EA is tackling a diverse set of issues, not just AI alignment and longevity, as the top spot of donations is going to malaria nets in Africa.

I just don't think this is a problem in practice. Sure, some people advocate spending all your charitable dollars on X-risk, but I think most people find a happy medium of spreading their giving between the different causes they think are important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com