Hacker News Reader

Comment by watwut | Hacker News Reader

I noticed the same thing about effective altruism. Its fans are really good at convincing themselves the most self-serving action amd goals are noble pursuits.

View on HN

It suffers from an ends-justify-the-means trap where bad actions in the short term with the long term goal of good actions are justified by the fact that you, the actor, know your philosophy is the best way to enact positive change.

I'm happy to try and get already wealthy individuals on the train of effective altruism but it has been used to justify wealth concentration far too much and, to be honest, spreading money around is one of the most effective ways to enact real positive changes in the world since individuals know their own situations the best.

Imagine thinking that EA could actually cause people to concentrate more wealth than they would've otherwise lmao

EA is probably too broad of an umbrella. I think there's a distinction to be made between trying to find the best per dollar donation (givewell etc) and people who use it as justification to amass wealth. That said, most of the people I know who declare themselves effective altruists also openly state that the world would be better off if all the wealth and decision making power were concentrated in a small group of hundreds of people who are "smarter" than everyone else. They tend to think that they would belong that group. Anecdotal, but it does make me skeptical whenever I meet someone who uses EA to describe themselves.

I think that's the point. No one wants to be the villain in their own story. We all tell ourselves stories to paint ourselves as good. I don't think most people are evil, but I think most evil is created by people who have convinced themselves they are good.

So I see EA as a popular one of those stories. One that people can reinforce. Makes the world simpler than it actually is: climb the ladder, make money at whatever cost, there's no harm that you can do that can't be offset by giving it all away at the end. It is a vast over simplification and is inconsistent logic. If they used their own logic then they'd recognize helping people now also results in compounding effects. You fix the problems now, while they are small and manageable, rather than kicking the can down the road. Maintenance is a lot easier and cheaper than repair. But it also requires us to be nuanced and reflect on ourselves [0]

[0] there seems to be a great irony that those leading these big AI companies are not themselves able to deeply reflect on their own actions, yet ask the AI to. How can you design something that you aren't intimately familiar with?

I’ve yet to hear of effective altruism from anyone less wealthy me. Seems to be weirdly lumped among the rich.

To be fair to its adherents (of which I am not one), the so-called philosophy espouses maximizing income, so that one can later allocate that wealth efficiently. Working in a low-earning field which directly provides aid to those in need would seem to violate a core precept of 'Effective Altruism'.

Intending to do good is a completely different beast to doing good. The promise of good later should always be discounted.

> the so-called philosophy espouses maximizing income, so that one can later allocate that wealth efficiently

No it doesn't.

This is a thing that some EAs believe, but is definitely not a "core precept."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com