EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
joko20
0
0

What is the main idea this video is trying to convey? Based on the title and description, I assumed the goal would be to introduce key ideas of longtermism/x-risks and promote WWOTF. It did the latter, but I don't think the video presents longtermist ideas in a very clear way. 

Earlier today, I watched the video with a couple of friends who have never heard about longtermism and x-risks before. It did not do a good job at sparking discussion. When talking about the video, the main takeaways were something like:

  •  civilizations have collapsed before
  •  if it happens again, we will most likely recover
  • to make sure that we actually recover, we should stop burning coal. However, everyone was already convinced that we should stop burning coal because of climate change arguments.
  • my friends were mostly confused about what longtermism is and why it is related to EA

Afterwards, I suggested reading Will's guest essay in the NYT. From my impression, that article got my friends a lot more excited about reading WWOTF and seemed to resolve the confusion about longtermism and EA. In the future, I will definitely send the NYT article to people as an introduction to longtermism or this WWOTF book review by Ali Abdaal for people who just really prefer watching videos.

Reply
See in context
by GabeM
1 min read 5

33

Building effective altruismExistential riskVideoEffective altruism art and fictionCivilizational collapseEffective altruism in the mediaExistential risk fictionLongtermism
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W93XyXHI8Nw

Kurzgesagt just released their second video on longtermism as a partnership with Will MacAskill and on the day What We Owe The Future releases! 

My initial thoughts:

  • I liked it more than the previous video for its focus on concrete risks and their implications.
  • I didn't like how it seemed more focused on catastrophic risks than existential risks—it seemed to present nuclear war and climate change at the same level of threat of biorisks, and it made no mention of AI until the book plug at the end.
  • It seemed way more optimistic about existential risks than I am (perhaps this is related to the previous point)? My main takeaway was something like "oh there might be risks to our global society, but we'll definitely make it back." I'm unsure how much to trade off feel-good messages that bring greater general support against perhaps more pessimistic messages that could galvanize more people into working on things.
  • Dunno how to feel about the big "Effective Altruism" banner at the end (but cartoon Will MacAskill is cute), I guess "soon" in EA will likely get more attention soon refers to now!
  • As usual, the animation and sounds are very appealing and satisfying.

33

1
0

Reactions

1
0
Mentioned in
Comments5


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
[anonymous]29
0
0

The top comments seem mostly critical at the moment. This video was posted today and already has 1.2 million views (>100x the number of active EAs as of 2019!), so it might be useful to examine the reception from this video's general audience. Some of the critique so far:

  • The video is titled "Is Civilization on the Brink of Collapse?", but it doesn't directly answer this question and instead focuses on the consequences of civilizational collapse and a road to recovery.
  • Comparisions are mainly made to ancient civilizations. They don't bear much resemblance to modern society, which is more technologically developed and thus robust to risks such as pandemics.
  • Skepticism towards AI being an x-risk (AGI won't be developed for a very long time and is difficult to build)
  • The video seems like a sponsored PR effort advancing WWOTF's agenda.
  • The video was poorly researched:
    • The Bronze Age collapse was not mentioned, despite being a crucial civilizational collapse which regressed scientific and technological development.
    • The definition of "civilization" at the beginning of the video excludes societies which didn't have hierarchies or abolished them.
  • Omission of some important extinction scenarios, like supervolcano eruptions or asteroid impacts.
  • The video is Eurocentric and doesn't mention other cultures or empires.
  • The video is too optimistic/futuristic; it offers scientifically possible but implausible solutions for rebuilding civilization, and doesn't demonstrate how to overcome social and political hurdles.
  • This video and "The Last Human – A Glimpse Into The Far Future" place too much emphasis on hypothetical future people, which distracts from suffering in the present.
Reply
joko20
0
0

What is the main idea this video is trying to convey? Based on the title and description, I assumed the goal would be to introduce key ideas of longtermism/x-risks and promote WWOTF. It did the latter, but I don't think the video presents longtermist ideas in a very clear way. 

Earlier today, I watched the video with a couple of friends who have never heard about longtermism and x-risks before. It did not do a good job at sparking discussion. When talking about the video, the main takeaways were something like:

  •  civilizations have collapsed before
  •  if it happens again, we will most likely recover
  • to make sure that we actually recover, we should stop burning coal. However, everyone was already convinced that we should stop burning coal because of climate change arguments.
  • my friends were mostly confused about what longtermism is and why it is related to EA

Afterwards, I suggested reading Will's guest essay in the NYT. From my impression, that article got my friends a lot more excited about reading WWOTF and seemed to resolve the confusion about longtermism and EA. In the future, I will definitely send the NYT article to people as an introduction to longtermism or this WWOTF book review by Ali Abdaal for people who just really prefer watching videos.

Reply
WilliamKiely13
0
0

There are a lot of highly upvoted comments saying the video needs a title change and frankly I agree the current title is not accurate for what the video discusses. I'm a little surprised and disappointed Kurzgesagt hasn't changed the title in response to the feedback. Does anyone know why they haven't changed it?

Reply
GabeM4
0
0

They just added to it so it's now "Is Civilization on the Brink of Collapse? And Could We Recover?" but it still seems to not answer the first question.

Reply
WilliamKiely4
0
0

I'm still seeing "Is Civilization on the Brink of Collapse?" so looks like they may have changed it back.

Reply
More from GabeM
165
Levelling Up in AI Safety Research Engineering
GabeM
· · 20m read
21
21
69
The Tree of Life: Stanford AI Alignment Theory of Change
GabeM
· · 17m read
5
5
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
This is a crosspost for The Case for Insect Consciousness by Bob Fischer, which was originally published on Asterisk in January 2025. [Subtitle.] The evidence that insects feel pain is mounting, however we approach the issue. For years, I was on the fence about the possibility of insects feeling pain — sometimes, I defended the hypothesis;[1] more often, I argued against it.[2] Then, in 2021, I started working on the puzzle of how to compare pain intensity across species. If a human and a pig are suffering as much as each one can, are they suffering the same amount? Or is the human’s pain worse? When my colleagues and I looked at several species, investigating both the probability of pain and its relative intensity,[3] we found something unexpected: on both scores, insects aren’t that different from many other animals.  Around the same time, I started working with an entomologist with a background in neuroscience. She helped me appreciate the weaknesses of the arguments against insect pain. (For instance, people make a big deal of stories about praying mantises mating while being eaten; they ignore how often male mantises fight fiercely to avoid being devoured.) The more I studied the science of sentience, the less confident I became about any theory that would let us rule insect sentience out.  I’m a philosopher, and philosophers pride themselves on following arguments wherever they lead. But we all have our limits, and I worry, quite sincerely, that I’ve been too willing to give insects the benefit of the doubt. I’ve been troubled by what we do to farmed animals for my entire adult life, whereas it’s hard to feel much for flies. Still, I find the argument for insect pain persuasive enough to devote a lot of my time to insect welfare research. In brief, the apparent evidence for the capacity of insects to feel pain is uncomfortably strong.[4] We could dismiss it if we had a consensus-commanding theory of sentience that explained why the apparent evidence is ir
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I recently read a blog post that concluded with: > When I'm on my deathbed, I won't look back at my life and wish I had worked harder. I'll look back and wish I spent more time with the people I loved. Setting aside that some people don't have the economic breathing room to make this kind of tradeoff, what jumps out at me is the implication that you're not working on something important that you'll endorse in retrospect. I don't think the author is envisioning directly valuable work (reducing risk from international conflict, pandemics, or AI-supported totalitarianism; improving humanity's treatment of animals; fighting global poverty) or the undervalued less direct approach of earning money and donating it to enable others to work on pressing problems. Definitely spend time with your friends, family, and those you love. Don't work to the exclusion of everything else that matters in your life. But if your tens of thousands of hours at work aren't something you expect to look back on with pride, consider whether there's something else you could be doing professionally that you could feel good about.
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
Introduction In this post, I present what I believe to be an important yet underexplored argument that fundamentally challenges the promise of cultivated meat. In essence, there are compelling reasons to conclude that cultivated meat will not replace conventional meat, but will instead primarily compete with other alternative proteins that offer superior environmental and ethical benefits. Moreover, research into and promotion of cultivated meat may potentially result in a net negative impact. Beyond critique, I try to offer constructive recommendations for the EA movement. While I've kept this post concise, I'm more than willing to elaborate on any specific point upon request. Finally, I contacted a few GFI team members to ensure I wasn't making any major errors in this post, and I've tried to incorporate some of their nuances in response to their feedback. From industry to academia: my cultivated meat journey I'm currently in my fourth year (and hopefully final one!) of my PhD. My thesis examines the environmental and economic challenges associated with alternative proteins. I have three working papers on cultivated meat at various stages of development, though none have been published yet. Prior to beginning my doctoral studies, I spent two years at Gourmey, a cultivated meat startup. I frequently appear in French media discussing cultivated meat, often "defending" it in a media environment that tends to be hostile and where misinformation is widespread. For a considerable time, I was highly optimistic about cultivated meat, which was a significant factor in my decision to pursue doctoral research on this subject. However, in the last two years, my perspective regarding cultivated meat has evolved and become considerably more ambivalent. Motivations and epistemic status Although the hype has somewhat subsided and organizations like Open Philanthropy have expressed skepticism about cultivated meat, many people in the movement continue to place considerable hop
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
53
Emergency call for ORCG support: Mitigating Global Catastrophic Risks
6 authors
· · 2m read
0
0
49
AIS Netherlands is looking for a Founding Executive Director (EOI form)
7 authors
· · 5m read
4
4
9
An International Collaborative Hub for Advancing AI Safety Research
Cody Albert
· · 6m read
0
0
View more