Hide table of contents

Musk's behaviour has always been controversial and he's always been kind of a dick, but I don't think it is controversial at all to say that until some years ago he has been extremely net positive for society and humanity in general. However, he's behaviour and actions turned much more disruptive in the recent years while, at the same time, the reach of his actions and opinions have also maximized. 

So, do you think Musk is still net-positive for humanity or he already turned to be net-negative in your view? I'd be interested to read your arguments below (also if you think that he's never been net-positive, for example).

I crossposted this question in LessWrong. I think having a flavour on how these communities feel about Musk is important because EA and the rationalist community have had kind of a "close" relationship with Musk -partly having helped shape his ideas and with adjacent organizations having received donations from him.

0

2
1

Reactions

2
1
New Answer
New Comment


4 Answers sorted by

I think the use of the word "still" makes this a much easier "no" than it might otherwise have been. SpaceX and Tesla have been hugely significant companies, he's played more role in them than he is sometimes credited with and it's not at all obvious that other companies would have done similar things on similar timelines in his absence, but if he were to divest all his shares in both companies and start slagging them off tomorrow, electric car sales and tech development would be fine (EV sales might even rise...) and the number of space launches would continue to rise. Even if both companies went down with him, the viability of electric cars and commercial space launch businesses is demonstrated now.[1] I also don't think that Twitter would be rainbows and sunshine in his absence or that Trump wouldn't have won without his endorsement,  but the empowering of engineers is a past accomplishment, and the empowerment of terrible people[2] Musk's current focus.

So that leaves what he might do differently in future. For people optimistic his flirtation with Trump was a strategy to give him the ability to do amazing things that only being trusted with lots of government budget could achieve, the initial indications aren't positive. There are no big space or cleantech or AI pledges: instead his "Manhattan Project" DOGE looks like a fundamentally unserious boondoggle generating memes about government waste (even if you think cutting government waste is the most important challenge of our time and Elon is an excellent choice to do it, it seems non-obvious that it will have much teeth or that it would operate significantly less effectively with Vivek Ramaswamy in sole charge. If you thought Elon in charge of NASA might lead to amazing advances... well he's busy with other things). And he certainly doesn't seem to be a moderating force around Trump, at least not outside very specific areas he cares about like H1-B visas and Chinese parts of the Tesla supply chain. 

He has, of course, sounded sincerely interested in the topic of AI safety before and has legitimate criticisms of OpenAI, but his main contribution to the field of AI other than storming out of that company in a dispute over who would run it is to take more risks than others around autonomous vehicle control tech and build an LLM chatbot whose distinguishing feature is that it's trained to be rude rather than polite. And it's difficult to argue that a man who was talking about the need to become an interplanetary species not that long ago and is now getting bigger dopamine hits out of the responses to tweets about how the US should overthrow the UK government is heading in the direction of thoughtfulness and caution.

  1. ^

    though losing SpaceX would significantly delay future launches...

  2. ^

    if my politics were broadly aligned with the nativist, populist right here in the UK,  I'd probably be even more disappointed with his selection of figures to promote and fights to pick.

Great response! I'm not clear whether "still" includes everything he has done to date, or whether it only includes what he does from now on in. I was considering the first, if it is the second like you say I agree with you

3
David T
Yep. I agree it can be interpreted in other ways and would agree with you that taking everything into account he's probably had more impact at the margin on the positive stuff than the negatives, so far. There was certainly a bigger shortage of people with the means and the motivation to take on EVs and commercial space in the early 2000s[1] than peopl willing to spout stupid stuff on social media in the last three years. 1. ^ I think battery and photovoltaics were coming down in manufacturing cost over the last decade regardless, but you don't automatically get complex products out of that...
1
Miquel Banchs-Piqué (prev. mikbp)
Oh, I meant it to include everything, sorry for the confusion. So, he's done a bunch of net-good stuff but now he's doing a bunch of net-bad stuff, is the former still larger than the latter? How should I express it in the title so that it is clear?
2
Miquel Banchs-Piqué (prev. mikbp)
And actually, since some time I tend to think that he's probably been vastly less net-good in the past than I previously thought. Not really because of him, but because Chinese companies are beating everyone, including Tesla, with their EVs (and I don't think he's had any influence in China betting hard for EVs, though I might be wrong here); so if Tesla would have not existed, the adoption of EVs would just have been only delayed for few years (and mostly only in the west). So his net-positive contribution -for me and now- seems much lower than it seemed before.
2
David T
"Has he been net positive for humanity overall" would be be clearer that it's looking at everything he's done so far But I actually think it's more interesting if it's an ambiguous question. The stuff he's done so far is significant but not necessarily aligned with what he's doing now and what he might do or intend to do in future. The trajectory he is on now is... not upward. The influence that he has now isn't necessarily more than when few people knew who he was, and he sounded more strategic as well as more amicable then. And the stuff he may or may not do in future is speculation.
1
Miquel Banchs-Piqué (prev. mikbp)
Ok, thanks. I leave it like this, then. Then everyone will have answered to the same question :-)

I'm (mostly) a lefty, I really don't like the guy and I think he might be net positive still. Normalizing EVs and battery power in general is so huge for climate change, and I think the jury is still out on whether his X takeover and his political efforts are that negative. I think given Trump's overwhelming win, it's not so plausible he made the difference in the election, and now he's in the mix he might well be an opposing positive force too (for example his recent pro immigration influence) 

But this is wild speculation and super shallow. Interested to hear other thoughts.

I think there is the possibility that he focused on the seemingly "right" goal, in the wrong way.

Interested to hear other thoughts

Same here! :-)

I don't have much to add. For reasons already stated I believe he is currently having a negative impact. I am much less sure whether his life thus far has been net positive or negative.

I am curious about the reasons for downvoting the post. I have a few suspicions but none seem that bad and I think it is an interesting question.

Yes, it is frustrating the downvoting-without-explanation dynamics of this forum. From the one side, forum admins encourage people to write more rather than less and then people downvoting without giving any reason. Maybe they don't realise it, but that's harming the forum and the movement. Anyway, thanks for the moral support.

When this was posted I would have said probably yes, now I say probably no.

Curated and popular this week
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Omnizoid
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Crossposted from my blog which many people are saying you should check out!    Imagine that you came across an injured deer on the road. She was in immense pain, perhaps having been mauled by a bear or seriously injured in some other way. Two things are obvious: 1. If you could greatly help her at small cost, you should do so. 2. Her suffering is bad. In such a case, it would be callous to say that the deer’s suffering doesn’t matter because it’s natural. Things can both be natural and bad—malaria certainly is. Crucially, I think in this case we’d see something deeply wrong with a person who thinks that it’s not their problem in any way, that helping the deer is of no value. Intuitively, we recognize that wild animals matter! But if we recognize that wild animals matter, then we have a problem. Because the amount of suffering in nature is absolutely staggering. Richard Dawkins put it well: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In fact, this is a considerable underestimate. Brian Tomasik a while ago estimated the number of wild animals in existence. While there are about 10^10 humans, wild animals are far more numerous. There are around 10 times that many birds, between 10 and 100 times as many mammals, and up to 10,000 times as many both of reptiles and amphibians. Beyond that lie the fish who are shockingly numerous! There are likely around a quadrillion fish—at least thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands o