Should companies aligned to EA be open about that?

Worried

Should companies aligned to EA be open about that?

Worried

1 min read · Nov 10, 2022

Comments 6

Sorted by

New & upvoted

lincolnq

I think you might now be overreacting to recent negative news; but before then you were probably overreacting to positive news. I do recommend building your own culture and brand for a company.

At Wave, we touch on EA in our mission and certainly did a little bit of hiring through EA aligned venues; but our mission is both simple to explain and largely independent of the whims of EA movement stuff. I think that's the way it should be; it was a deliberate choice for us and I think has served us well.

Sharmake

I don't think so. Normally I'm not a fan of reacting to the news, but here's the thing. This event could very well turn into a catastrophic risk for EA in the PR realm, and the consequences for things like EA and quantitative thinking could be disastrous. It certainly makes sense to bring in PR resources now.

Closed Limelike Curves

Certainly makes sense to bring in PR resources, but let’s be clear that much worse ethical scandals than “One rich guy who donated to this turned out to have committed fraud” have frequently failed to destroy social movements. This will probably hurt EA, but is unlikely to permanently ruin its reputation unless it leads EAs to disaffiliate themselves from the movement to avoid negative PR—i.e. if most of its supporters are more concerned about optics and signaling than doing good.

The only way EA can be destroyed is if EAs, not non-EAs, abandon it.

Brad West🔸

The core of EA has always been about using our the most of our will and the best of our reason to do the most good we can. So you can be "EA" even if you disagree with many directions the community has decided to go or forgot, and if individual actors, even powerful members, have made choices you disagree with. For a while, I have disagreed strongly with some of decisions by elites in the EA community, but this commitment to a robust community of different, conflicting voices, with a shared commitment to doing good the best we know how, is what we are about.

So, it might not be the easiest to be associated with EA due to the recent SBF news, but I think it's probably important to show your commitment. And if anyone asks you, it's not about any one billionaire or group of people, but rather about you and your business's commitment to a set of principles.

Vincent van der Holst

I think this is a good question to think about. I agree it would continue to be great to endorse the principles rather than the movement. I personally have wondered to what extent I personally and our company should endorse EA, because some of its associations are good, and others maybe not so much. I ended up sometimes talking about EA, but mostly talking about the principles and not actively saying the company or I are EA's. I see a lot of EA aligned companies taking the same approach. This seems like it might be good for both the company, and perhaps also EA, especially if there's bad news around the company, like with FTX right now.

It might be good for the EA movement for this company to show commitment, but it might be bad for this particular company if it leads to bad PR and negative brand associations. It could be net positive to take a hit on your brand if you continue to help people discover EA, but it's also a difficult decision to make when you run a company, and it's hard to find out which weighs heavier: the performance of this company or the influence it has in EA.

Alexander Herwix 🔸

Yeah, I think this question is pretty interesting and worthwhile pondering about at least a little bit.

I think that one could take the perspective that the whole FTX situation is presenting EA in a bad light BECAUSE FTX has had a very visible connection to EA with most people (including me) being very enthusiastic about this. I think it’s safe to say that few were considering potential downsides of such associations. It seems like this whole situation can become a watershed moment for the whole community to look at the sources of where “our” money is coming from more critically. Maybe we need new vetting mechanisms or at least be more careful about “praising” large donors.

It’s gonna be interesting to see how this develops!

Comments

Curated and popular this week

Was Partisanship Good for the Environmental Movement?

Jeffrey Heninger·2y ago·Curated 5d ago·6m read

This is the third in a sequence of posts taken from my recent report: Why Did Environmentalism Become Partisan? Summary Rising partisanship did not make environmentalism more popular or politically effective. Instead, it saw flat or falling overall public opinion, fewer major legislative achievements, and fluctuating executive actions. Public Opinion...

GWWC's 2025 impact evaluation (executive summary)

Aidan Whitfield🔸, Giving What We Can🔸·1d ago·2m read

This post presents the executive summary from Giving What We Can’s impact evaluation for 2025. At the end of this post we share links to more information, including the full report and...

Announcing Spring: a Venture Studio and Fund for Animal Welfare Tech

EitanF·1d ago·13m read

Why building and backing Welfare Tech companies may be one of the most promising things we can do for billions of animals. I used AI to assist in writing this post, but I’ve rewritten it extensively and endorse it. * Announcing the launch of Spring Innovation Fund, a not-for-profit venture philanthropy studio and fund built specifical...

Recent opportunities to take action

You Should Come to The AI Protest

Ronak Mehta·7h ago·5m read

$1M AI x-risk grant round is live on grantmaking.ai - apply for funding, review applicants, or fund projects

Matt Brooks·2d ago·3m read

136

Possible mistake EAs are making and shout out to Pause AI UK

Michelle_Hutchinson·1w ago·4m read