Tom Barnes's Quick takes

The framing "PR concerns" makes it sound like all the people doing the actual work are (and will always be) longtermists, whereas the focus on GCR is just for the benefit of the broader public. This is not the case. For example, I work on technical AI safety, and I am not a longtermist. I expect there to be more people like me either already in the GCR community, or within the pool of potential contributors we want to attract. Hence, the reason to focus on GCR is building a broader coalition in a very tangible sense, not just some vague "PR".

Speaking personally, I have also perceived a move away from longtermism, and as someone who finds longtermism very compelling, this has been disappointing to see. I agree it has substantive implications on what we prioritise.

Speaking more on behalf of GWWC, where I am a researcher: our motivation for changing our cause area from “creating a better future” to “reducing global catastrophic risks” really was not based on PR. As shared here:

We think of a “high-impact cause area” as a collection of causes that, for donors with a variety of values and starting assumptions (“worldviews”), provide the most promising philanthropic funding opportunities. Donors with different worldviews might choose to support the same cause area for different reasons. For example, some may donate to global catastrophic risk reduction because they believe this is the best way to reduce the risk of human extinction and thereby safeguard future generations, while others may do so because they believe the risk of catastrophes in the next few decades is sufficiently large and tractable that it is the best way to help people alive today.

Essentially, we’re aiming to use the term “reducing global catastrophic risks” as a kind of superset that includes reducing existential risk, and that is inclusive of all the potential motivations. For example, when looking for recommendations in this area, we would be happy to include recommendations that only make sense from a longtermist perspective. A large part of the motivation for this was based on finding some of the arguments made in several of the posts you linked (including “EA and Longtermism: not a crux for saving the world”) compelling. 

Also, our decision to step down from managing the communications for the Longtermism Fund (now “Emerging Challenges Fund”) was based on wanting to be able to more independently evaluate Longview’s grantmaking, rather than brand association. 

Great post, Tom, thanks for writing!

One thought is that a GCR framing isn't the only alternative to longtermism. We could also talk about caring for future generations. 

This has fewer of the problems you point out (e.g. differentiates between recoverable global catastrophes and existential catastrophes). To me, it has warm, positive associations. And it's pluralistic, connected to indigenous worldviews and environmentalist rhetoric.

Thanks for sharing this, Tom! I think this is an important topic, and I agree with some of the downsides you mention, and think they’re worth weighing highly; many of them are the kinds of things I was thinking in this post of mine of when I listed these anti-claims:

Anti-claims

(I.e. claims I am not trying to make and actively disagree with) 

• No one should be doing EA-qua-EA talent pipeline work
  • I think we should try to keep this onramp strong. Even if all the above is pretty correct, I think the EA-first onramp will continue to appeal to lots of great people. However, my guess is that a medium-sized reallocation away from it would be good to try for a few years. 
• The terms EA and longtermism aren’t useful and we should stop using them
  • I think they are useful for the specific things they refer to and we should keep using them in situations where they are relevant and ~ the best terms to use (many such situations exist). I just think we are over-extending them to a moderate degree 
• It’s implausible that existential risk reduction will come apart from EA/LT goals 
  • E.g. it might come to seem (I don’t know if it will, but it at least is imaginable) that attending to the wellbeing of digital minds is more important from an EA perspective than reducing misalignment risk, and that those things are indeed in tension with one another. 
  • This seems like a reason people who aren’t EA and just prioritize existential risk reduction are less helpful from an EA perspective than if they also shared EA values all else equal, and like something to watch out for, but I don’t think it outweighs the arguments in favor of more existential risk-centric outreach work.

This isn’t mostly a PR thing for me. Like I mentioned in the post, I actually drafted and shared an earlier version of that post in summer 2022 (though I didn’t decide to publish it for quite a while), which I think is evidence against it being mostly a PR thing. I think the post pretty accurately captures my reasoning at the time, that I think often people doing this outreach work on the ground were actually focused on GCRs or AI risk and trying to get others to engage on that and it felt like they were ending up using terms that pointed less well at what they were interested in for path-dependent reasons. Further updates towards shorter AI timelines moved me substantially in terms of the amount I favor the term “GCR” over “longtermism”, since I think it increases the degree to which a lot of people mostly want to engage people about GCRs or AI risk in particular. 

One point that hasn't been mentioned: GCR's may be many, many orders of magnitude more likely than extinctions. For example, it's not hard to imagine a super deadly virus that kills 50% of the worlds population , but a virus that manages to kill literally everyone, including people hiding out in bunkers, remote villages, and in antarctica, doesn't make too much sense: if it was that lethal, it would probably burn out before reaching everyone. 

Hi Tom.

From a longtermist (~totalist classical utilitarian) perspective, there's a huge difference between ~99% and 100% of the population dying, if humanity recovers in the former case, but not the latter. Just looking at GCRs on their own mostly misses this nuance.

I would be curious to know your thougths on my post arguing that decreasing the risk of human extinction is not astronomically cost-effective.

From a longtermist (~totalist classical utilitarian) perspective, preventing a GCR doesn't differentiate between "humanity prevents GCRs and realises 1% of it's potential" and "humanity prevents GCRs realises 99% of its potential"

The same applies to preventing human extinction over a given period. Humans could go extinct just after the period, or go on to an astronomically valuable, and I believe the former is much more likely.

From a longtermist (~suffering focused) perspective, reducing GCRs might be net-negative if the future is (in expectation) net-negative

This also applies to reducing the risk of human extinction.

Over the last ~6 months I've noticed a general shift amongst EA orgs to focus less on reducing risks from AI, Bio, nukes, etc based on the logic of longtermism, and more based on Global Catastrophic Risks (GCRs) directly... My guess is these changes are (almost entirely) driven by PR concerns about longtermism.

It seems worth flagging that whether these alternative approaches are better for PR (or outreach considered more broadly) seems very uncertain. I'm not aware of any empirical work directly assessing this even though it seems a clearly empirically tractable question. Rethink Priorities has conducted some work in this vein (referenced by Will MacAskill here), but this work, and other private work we've completed, wasn't designed to address this question directly. I don't think the answer is very clear a priori. There are lots of competing considerations and anecdotally, when we have tested things for different orgs, the results are often surprising. Things are even more complicated when you consider how different approaches might land with different groups, as you mention.

We are seeking funding to conduct work which would actually investigate this question (here), as well as to do broader work on EA/longtermist message testing, and broader work assessing public attitudes towards EA/longtermism (which I don't have linkable applications for).

I think this kind of research is also valuable even if one is very sceptical of optimising PR. Even if you don't want to maximise persuasiveness, it's still important to understand how different groups are understanding (or misunderstanding) your message.  

From a "current generations" perspective, reducing GCRs is probably not more cost-effective than directly improving the welfare of people / animals alive today

I think reducing GCRs seems pretty likely to wildly outcompete other traditional approaches^[1] if we use a slightly broad notion of current generation (e.g. currently existing people) due to the potential for a techno utopian world which making the lives of currently existing people >1,000x better (which heavily depends on diminishing returns and other considerations). E.g., immortality, making them wildly smarter, able to run many copies in parallel, experience insanely good experiences, etc. I don't think BOTECs will be a crux for this unless we ignore start discounting things rather sharply.

• If GCRs actually are more cost-effective under a "current generations" worldview, then I question why EAs would donate to global health / animal charities (since this is no longer a question of "worldview diversification", just raw cost-effectiveness)

IMO, the main axis of variation for EA related cause prio is "how far down the crazy train do we go" not "person affecting (current generations) vs otherwise" (though views like person affecting ethics might be downstream of crazy train stops).

Mildly against the Longtermism --> GCR shift

Idk what I think about Longtermism --> GCR, but I do think that we shouldn't lose "the future might be totally insane" and "this might be the most important century in some longer view". And I could imagine focus on GCR killing a broader view of history.

1. ^{^}

   That said, if we literally just care about experiences which are somewhat continuous with current experiences, it's plausible that speeding up AI outcompetes reducing GCRs/AI risk. And it's plausible that there are more crazy sounding interventions which look even better (e.g. extremely low cost cryonics). Minimally the overall situation gets dominated by "have people survive until techno utopia and ensure that techno utopia happens". And the relative tradeoffs between having people survive until techno utopia and ensuring that techno utopia happen seem unclear and will depend on some more complicated moral view. Minimally, animal suffering looks relatively worse to focus on.

I've upvoted this comment, but weakly disagree that there's such a shift happening (EVF orgs still seem to be selecting pretty heavily for longtermist projects, the global health and development fund has been discontinued while the LTFF is still around etc), and quite strongly disagree that it would be bad if it is:

From a longtermist (~totalist classical utilitarian) perspective, there's a huge difference between ~99% and 100% of the population dying, if humanity recovers in the former case, but not the latter.

That 'if' clause is doing a huge amount of work here. In practice I think the EA community is far too sanguine about our prospects post-civilisational collapse  of becoming interstellar (which, from a longtermist perspective, is what matters - not 'recovery'). I've written a sequence on this here, and have a calculator which allows you to easily explore the simple model's implications on your beliefs described in post 3 here, with an implementation of the more complex model available on the repo. As Titotal wrote in another reply, it's easy to believe 'lesser' catastrophes are many times more likely, so could very well be where the main expected loss of value lies.

From a longtermist (~totalist classical utilitarian) perspective, preventing a GCR doesn't differentiate between "humanity prevents GCRs and realises 1% of it's potential" and "humanity prevents GCRs realises 99% of its potential"

I think I agree with this, but draw a different conclusion. Longtermist work has focused heavily on existential risk, and in practice the risk of extinction, IMO seriously dropping the ball on trajectory changes with little more justification that the latter are hard to think about. As a consequence they've ignored what seem to me the very real loss of expected unit-value from lesser catastrophes, and the to-me-plausible increase in it from interventions designed to make people's lives better (generally lumping those in as 'shorttermist'). If people are now starting to take other catastrophic risks more seriously, that might be remedied. (also relevant to your 3rd and 4th points)

From a "current generations" perspective, reducing GCRs is probably not more cost-effective than directly improving the welfare of people / animals alive today

This seems to be treating 'focus only on current generations' and 'focus on Pascalian arguments for astronomical value in the distant future' as the only two reasonable views. David Thorstad has written a lot, I think very reasonably, about reasons why expected value of longtermist scenarios might actually be quite low, but one might still have considerable concern for the next few generations.

From a general virtue ethics / integrity perspective, making this change on PR / marketing reasons alone - without an underlying change in longtermist motivation - feels somewhat deceptive.

Counterpoint: I think the discourse before the purported shift to GCRs was substantially more dishonest. Nanda and Alexander's posts argued that we should talk about x-risk rather than longtermism on the grounds that it might kill you and everyone you know - which is very misleading if you only seriously consider catastrophes that kill 100% of people, and ignore (or conceivably even promote) those that leave >0.01% behind (which, judging by Luisa Rodriguez's work is around the point beyond which EAs would typically consider something an existential catastrophe).

I basically read Zabel's post as doing the same, not as desiring a shift to GCR focus, but as desiring presenting the work that way, saying 'I’d guess that if most of us woke up without our memories here in 2022 [now 2023], and the arguments about potentially imminent existential risks were called to our attention, it’s unlikely that we’d re-derive EA and philosophical longtermism as the main and best onramp to getting other people to work on that problem' (emphasis mine).

Nanda, Alexander and Zabel's posts all left a very bad taste in my mouth for exactly that reason.

There's something fairly disorienting about the community switching so quickly from [quite aggressive] "yay longtermism!" (e.g. much hype around launch of WWOTF) to essentially disowning the word longtermism, with very little mention / admission that this happened or why

This is as much an argument that we made a mistake ever focusing on longtermism as that we shouldn't now shift away from it. Oliver Habryka (can't find link offhand) and Kelsey Piper are two EAs who've publicly expressed discomfort with the level of artificial support WWOTF received, and I'm much less notable, but happy to add myself to the list of people uncomfortable the business, especially since at the time he was a trustee of the charity that was doing so much to promote his career.

Meta: this should not have been a quick take, but a post (references, structure, tldr, epistemic status, ...)

I am very sceptical about the numbers presented in this article. 22% of US citizens have heard of Effective Altruism? That seems very high. RP did a survey in May 2022 and found that somewhere between 2.6% and 6.7% of the US population had heard of EA. Even then, my intuition was that this seemed high. Even with the FTX stuff it seems extremely unlikely that 22% of Americans have actually heard of EA.

throw e/acc on there too