Stop saying Effective Altruism is "weird", "cringe" and full of problems - so often
And yes, "weird" has negative connotations to most people. Self flagellation once helped highlight areas needing improvement. Now overcorrection has created hesitation among responsible, cautious, and credible people who might otherwise publicly identify as effective altruists. As a result, the label increasingly belongs to those willing to accept high reputational risks or use it opportunistically, weakening the movement’s overall credibility.
If you're aligned with EA’s core principles, thoughtful in your actions, and have no significant reputational risks, then identifying openly as an EA is especially important. Normalising the term matters. When credible and responsible people embrace the label, they anchor it positively and prevent misuse.
Offline I was early to criticise Effective Altruism’s branding and messaging. Admittedly, the name itself is imperfect. Yet at this point, it is established and carries public recognition. We can't discard it without losing valuable continuity and trust. If you genuinely believe in the core ideas and engage thoughtfully with EA’s work, openly identifying yourself as an effective altruist is a logical next step.
Specifically, if you already have a strong public image, align privately with EA values, and have no significant hidden issues, then you're precisely the person who should step forward and put skin in the game. Quiet alignment isn’t enough. The movement’s strength and reputation depend on credible voices publicly standing behind it.
In 1936, Alan Turing proved that no algorithm can determine, for every possible program and input, whether that program will eventually stop running or run forever.
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
I believe Rice's theorem applies to a programmable calculator. Do you think it is impossible to prove that a programmable handheld calculator is "safe"? Do you think it is impossible to make a programmable calculator safe?
My point is, just because you can't formally, mathematically prove something, doesn't mean it's not true.
You can formally mathematically prove a programmable calculator. You just can't formally mathematically prove every possible programmable calculator. On the other hand, if you can't mathematically prove a given programmable calculator, it might be a sign that your design is an horrible sludge. On the other other hand, deep-learnt neural networks are definitionally horrible sludge.
I think halting undecidability and Rice's theorem are being misapplied here.
It is true that no algorithm can determine, for every possible program and input, whether that program will halt. But for specific programs and inputs, it is often possible to figure out whether they halt or not.
I agree that there is no method that allows us to check all possible AGI designs for a specific nontrivial behavioral property. But this does not forbid us to select an AGI design for which we can prove that it has a specific behavioral property!
And yes, "weird" has negative connotations to most people. Self flagellation once helped highlight areas needing improvement. Now overcorrection has created hesitation among responsible, cautious, and credible people who might otherwise publicly identify as effective altruists. As a result, the label increasingly belongs to those willing to accept high reputational risks or use it opportunistically, weakening the movement’s overall credibility.
If you're aligned with EA’s core principles, thoughtful in your actions, and have no significant reputational risks, then identifying openly as an EA is especially important. Normalising the term matters. When credible and responsible people embrace the label, they anchor it positively and prevent misuse.
Offline I was early to criticise Effective Altruism’s branding and messaging. Admittedly, the name itself is imperfect. Yet at this point, it is established and carries public recognition. We can't discard it without losing valuable continuity and trust. If you genuinely believe in the core ideas and engage thoughtfully with EA’s work, openly identifying yourself as an effective altruist is a logical next step.
Specifically, if you already have a strong public image, align privately with EA values, and have no significant hidden issues, then you're precisely the person who should step forward and put skin in the game. Quiet alignment isn’t enough. The movement’s strength and reputation depend on credible voices publicly standing behind it.
In 1936, Alan Turing proved that no algorithm can determine, for every possible program and input, whether that program will eventually stop running or run forever.
I believe Rice's theorem applies to a programmable calculator. Do you think it is impossible to prove that a programmable handheld calculator is "safe"? Do you think it is impossible to make a programmable calculator safe?
My point is, just because you can't formally, mathematically prove something, doesn't mean it's not true.
You can formally mathematically prove a programmable calculator. You just can't formally mathematically prove every possible programmable calculator. On the other hand, if you can't mathematically prove a given programmable calculator, it might be a sign that your design is an horrible sludge. On the other other hand, deep-learnt neural networks are definitionally horrible sludge.
I think halting undecidability and Rice's theorem are being misapplied here. It is true that no algorithm can determine, for every possible program and input, whether that program will halt. But for specific programs and inputs, it is often possible to figure out whether they halt or not.
I agree that there is no method that allows us to check all possible AGI designs for a specific nontrivial behavioral property. But this does not forbid us to select an AGI design for which we can prove that it has a specific behavioral property!