Comment Permalink

Hi Melanie, if I was a local EA group leader like you I'd feel more like you because it is awkward and something to have to deal with. But I'm welcoming the energy of it...I saw on Linked yesterday a picture of some new School of Moral Ambition enthusiasts in front of a bus that had the SMA name on it, and I knew two of them personally from EA circles and another whose name I recognized. One is an effective giving leader, the other Animal Welfare. I'm a Global Health person, and I think we are all not feeling that great in EA for the last few years as it starting leaning toward Longtermism and now AI...of course I'm glad we are doing work in those areas, but it seems like charity work has fallen to the side, and it appears Moral Ambition would move charity work back to the center.

I am encouraged that within well known EA effective giving funds, charity work is still represented, so as a bulwark infrastructure of EA, it is still there, but as for the winds of energy and movement, that all seems to be blowing toward AI right now, you can even see a post on the forum now about this dynamic. I have hopes to make a case within EA for more mental health funding in LMICs but it seems I'd be going against so many winds as to be almost an ineffective use of time...and if that were the case, you can imagine someone like me slowly fading from EA and going to Moral Ambition as a more welcoming place...but I agree with your premise that it would be better for us to work together.

The final thought is that with so many EA's feeling shy and becoming adjacent, I think I can understand why a person starting a new movement would make the clear decision to steer clear of the name mostly in their writing, while still having good relations with people behind the scenes. I find myself holding back on EA mentions when some of them drew negative feedback/criticisms...not something a new charity needs when building.

Thoughts on Moral Ambition by Rutger Bregman

by Patrick Gruban 🔸

Jan 92 min read 30

181

Career choiceBooksSchool for Moral AmbitionOpinion

Frontpage

I can’t recall the last time I read a book in one sitting, but that’s what happened with Moral Ambition by bestselling author Rutger Bregman. I read the German edition, though it’s also available in Dutch (see James Herbert's Quick Take). An English release is slated for May.

The book opens with the statement: “The greatest waste of our times is the waste of talent.” From there, Bregman builds a compelling case for privileged individuals to leave their “bullshit jobs” and tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. He weaves together narratives spanning historical movements like abolitionism, suffrage, and civil rights through to contemporary initiatives such as Against Malaria Foundation, Charity Entrepreneurship, LEEP, and the Shrimp Welfare Project.

If you’ve been engaged with EA ideas, much of this will sound familiar, but I initially didn’t expect to enjoy the book as much as I did. However, Bregman’s skill as a storyteller and his knack for balancing theory and narrative make Moral Ambition a fascinating read. He reframes EA concepts in a more accessible way, such as replacing “counterfactuals” with the sports acronym “VORP” (Value Over Replacement Player). His use of stories and examples, paired with over 500 footnotes for details, makes the book approachable without sacrificing depth.

I had some initial reservations. The book draws heavily on examples from the EA community but rarely engages directly with the movement, mentioning EA mainly in the context of FTX. The final chapter also promotes Bregman’s own initiative, The School for Moral Ambition. However, the school’s values closely align with core EA principles. The ITN framework and pitches for major EA cause areas are in the book, albeit with varying levels of depth.

Having finished the book, I can appreciate its approach. Moral Ambition feels like a more pragmatic, less theory-heavy version of EA. The School for Moral Ambition has attracted better-known figures in Germany, such as the political economist Maja Göpel and social entrepreneur Waldemar Zeiler, who haven’t previously been associated with EA. I’ve started recommending the book to people I’d like to introduce to career-impact ideas, especially those who might prefer a story-driven, lighter entry point over something like 80,000 Hours.

It will be interesting to see how the book fares in the U.S., where Bregman recently relocated and has already received some press. Perhaps Moral Ambition can help preserve and propagate EA ideals in a post-FTX era or complement existing brands like Charity Entrepreneurship, Giving What We Can, and 80,000 Hours.

That said, there’s a notable difference in approach. While Moral Ambition incorporates many EA principles, it steers readers toward its own School of Moral Ambition rather than EA organizations. For instance, 80,000 Hours—a natural fit for this topic—gets just a single footnote. This contrasts with EA’s collaborative spirit, where mutual recommendation and shared resources are the norm.

The School of Moral Ambition adds value by broadening the reach of EA-inspired ideas. However, if the EA movement were to shift toward a model with more independent entities and less collaboration, it could risk losing some of its unique strengths.

181 Reactions

Mentioned in

32What should we ask Rutger Bregman and Peter Singer about how they changed their minds?

More posts like this

Comments30

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 8:16 PM

James HerbertJan 1450

Thanks for writing this Patrick!

While working on EA Netherlands' annual report I wrote a small section about Rutger Bregman, the School for Moral Ambition, and how I now see EAN's role in the Netherlands.

It's been shared with other national organisers and with a few people in CEA, but I thought I'd post an edited version here in case it's helpful to more people.

TL;DR: SMA is a more mainstream, career-focused offshoot: ~20 staff, three programs (outreach, community, fellowships), and an expanding audience. EA Netherlands is the nerdier cousin.

The last couple of years have seen some important changes in our operating environment, perhaps more so than in other countries. In 2022, there was a lot of hype around EA (both internationally and domestically). It was particularly big in the Netherlands because one of the country’s most prominent public intellectuals, Rutger Bregman, was beginning to advocate for it. He wrote several well-read articles for De Correspondent, discussed EA on his popular podcast, and spoke at several large events (including EAGxRotterdam).

However, this changed with the FTX scandal. By the middle of 2023, Bregman had withdrawn his wholehearted endorsement of the EA movement and had started work on his new initiative, the School for Moral Ambition (SMA). SMA launched in the Netherlands in 2024 and, while it clearly takes some inspiration from EA (alongside other movements), and several of the early key players have strong connections to EA, SMA has made significant efforts to distance itself from EA.

This has resulted in articles with headlines such as “Effective altruism is stumbling. Can ‘moral ambition’ replace it?”. On X, Bregman likens EA to the Quakers: very weird, but also very right about some of the most fundamental issues of our time. In his view, if EAs are the Quakers of the 21st century, SMAs are the Evangelicals: a movement that is broader and more ‘normie’.

In mid-2022, we thought Bregman might launch something that would result in a big spike in interest in EA in the Netherlands. By the end of the year, we no longer thought this was likely but we were unsure what exactly SMA would mean for the EA movement. This uncertainty continued throughout 2023. However, by the time we were making plans for 2024, we knew SMA wouldn’t focus on GCRs in the near future, so we made this one of our key priorities for 2024.

With SMA’s launch in 2024, we now have a more accurate picture. SMA has approximately 20 employees and three main programmes: outreach, community, and fellowships. Below is a brief description of each.

First, outreach. The accompanying book caused a big stir in the Netherlands, has already launched in Germany, and is launching in the US and UK in 2025. To give an idea of numbers, in one year they’ve gone from zero LinkedIn followers to 40,000. The book has been supplemented with marketing campaigns, media appearances, a podcast, etc. Their target audience is conventionally successful professionals: “You have a neat resume and a great job. You’re what people commonly call ‘successful.’ And yet, something gnaws at you. Does your work really make a difference? Are you using your talents for a good cause? Or has the world not really become a better place when you’ve checked off your to-do lists?”.

Second, community. This consists of an online platform, ‘Circles’, and events. A Circle is a group of six to eight people that help each other to explore how they can make the greatest impact through their work. They do so by going through the Circle programme (hosted on SMA’s website) together for 16 weeks and 8 sessions. Last I heard, 3,500 people have joined their online platform and approximately 700 people have taken part in a circle, with over 100 people taking a pledge to change their careers.

Third, fellowships. Modelled on Training for Good’s EU Tech Policy Fellowship, they’ve launched two fellowships. One combats the tobacco industry, the other aims to facilitate the transition to sustainable proteins.

So, what do I think this means for EA Netherlands?

While the School for Moral Ambition shares our commitment to prioritisation, impartial altruism, and open truthseeking, it (currently) remains limited to career guidance and does not focus on more unconvential issues such as GCR, wild animal welfare, digital sentience, etc. It is also more focused on professionals.
Given this context, I now see EA Netherlands as the slightly weird and nerdy cousin of SMA (in a positive sense!). We provide a community for people who want to more rigorously explore how they can best contribute to highly neglected and sometimes unconventional causes with their careers, donations, and organising skills.

Melanie BrennanMay 9*17

Thanks for sharing this, James. I haven't read the book yet, so what I'm about to write is based on following RB and MA's activites on Linkedin, looking at the MA website and talking to someone who attended one of their online onboarding sessions. So please take some aspects of my comment with a grain of salt.

As an EA city group organiser, I think what would be helpful for me (and likely for other community builders) is guidance on how to position our work in light of the new MA movement. I'm hopeful that the two can co-exist and even amplify one another. You've mentioned that several of MA’s co-founders have roots in the EA community (including one who co-directed EA Netherlands), which I personally find really encouraging.

However, I do feel some concern around the intentional distancing from EA (for PR reasons we assume), particularly the decision not to publically disclose the close ties between the two, the pretty blatant repackaging of the ITN framework under a new label (SSS - I found the third S - "sorely overlooked" - a bit of a stretch!), with no mention as to the origin, the omission of 80,000 hours and now, (from what I’ve heard), the recent promotion of Effective Giving without mentioning GWWC, etc. It's my worry that all of this, from a local community building perspective, has the potential to create real friction.

For example, I can imagine a Moral Ambition Circle starting up here in Barcelona. If we from EA Barcelona try to connect or collaborate, we may be met with confusion, or worse, even suspicion. People might say, "What's that you say? You're part of another movement doing almost the same thing? But with a way worse reputation? Why should I believe you given that there's no mention of EA on the MA website, etc". That lack of transparency could lead to mistrust, even if our intentions are aligned.

Anyway, I’d really love to hear your thoughts on how to navigate this emerging dynamic in a positive and constructive way, especially in terms of messaging and collaboration with MA. Thank you!

Update: I have since finished the book. Overall, I really enjoyed reading it, and agree that it’s essentially EA repackaged for a broader audience, which I find genuinely exciting. After finishing it, I felt a renewed, strong motivation to continue striving to build a better world.

At the same time, the lack of explicit acknowledgement of EA’ obvious influence still feels quite off to me. In fact, "influence" is too weak a word - it's clear that this book probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for the groundwork of EA. Others have said that Rutger speaks positively about EA in different contexts, so I can't help but wonder: why not use this book, which looks likely to reach a huge new audience, to improve EA’s optics, rather than reinforce outdated criticisms? Like, he mostly critiques EA for being too “nerdy,” too focused on earning to give, and references SBF as a warning against extreme utilitarianism (fair), but to me it sounds like he got a bit put off by “old EA” and stopped updating his view on how the movement has expanded over the past few years.

Some things also come across uncomfortably close to plagiarism for my liking (maybe this is too deontological a stance for many people on this forum, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due). For example, the SSS model is essentially a copy of the ITN framework, but he doesn’t acknowledge that anywhere. He dedicates a full chapter to Charity Entrepreneurship and how amazing it is, without once mentioning its strong ties to the EA movement. Then later, in his one chapter where he mostly criticises EA, he says "oh, btw, remember that awesome organisation I mentioned before? That was founded through the EA movement - now, moving on...", as if it was so... incidental. He's clearly very impressed by Joey Savoie (fair) but Will MacAskill, Toby Ord and others don't get much praise (unfair). And, the most serious omission in my opinion, is that 80,000 Hours isn’t referenced at all, except in a couple of footnotes, despite the book’s entire premise (and, in particular, the introduction) basically echoing 80k's core message i.e. “You have 80,000 hours in your career. Why not use them to make a difference?”

So, while I’m still overall very excited about MA and the new energy/talent it could bring into our work and shared mission, I'm still concerned about the pretty serious lack of attribution and the strategic distancing. I think it could make it harder for us to build bridges and create a shared, transparent narrative between these two clearly very aligned communities.

Jeffrey KursonisMay 144

JasonMay 103

My starting point would be to give the MA group a good bit of breathing room here. Based on this quote, it appears that Bregman is intentionally trying to do something distinct from EA. I think there's a lot of potential value in that approach, and would be concerned about interfering with it. That may change as MA becomes more established, but for now I think it makes sense for MA to focus on being its own thing with a clear separation from EA.

While I too suspect that some of the distancing is "for PR reasons," I suspect there is more to it than that. The quote suggests that Bregman is aiming for a movement with a broader scope rather than focusing as much on the recruitment of elite, highly engaged individuals. I personally think that is a vast area that EA has been largely unable to tap (in part for cultural reasons), and I'm not sure if significant interfacing with EA early on is going to help MA tap it. Once it has its own culture and is more developed, MA should be in a position to work more closely with EA without being swallowed by it.

Of course, MA will develop its own weaknesses and turnoffs. But there's significant value in those weaknesses being somewhat different than the weaknesses and turnoffs of the EA community. We want to maximize the number of individuals who will find a comfortable home in a effectiveness-focused community of altruism, and having the EA-like movements be too similar doesn't move us toward that goal.

Manuel AllgaierJan 927

I've been in touch with some of the School for Moral Ambition (SMA) co-founders and the DACH director, and my sense is that all of them are very collaborative and interested in EA or even members of the community. I think SMA and EA have quite a lot of synergies, if they keep in touch with each other and don't see each other as competition.

I see SMA as a unique chance to reach more people and more senior professionals, and get them excited about doing the most good. They might also be able to unlock additional funding for effective charities. I'm very excited to see them grow.

Vasco Grilo🔸Jan 1126

Thanks for sharing, Patrick.

From there, Bregman builds a compelling case for privileged individuals to leave their “bullshit jobs” and tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. He weaves together narratives spanning historical movements like abolitionism, suffrage, and civil rights through to contemporary initiatives such as Against Malaria Foundation, Charity Entrepreneurship, LEEP, and the Shrimp Welfare Project.

I have not read the book. However, it is unclear to me whether privileged individuals should leave their jobs to increase their social impact via direct work. Earning to give can be pretty powerful, and people's “bullshit jobs” may have significantly higher earnings. I also think the most cost-effective organisations in areas related to effective altruism are way more cost-effective than the median one. I would say the best animal welfare organisations are at least 100 times as cost-effective as the best in global health and development and AI safety^[1]. So I believe optimising for donating more to the best animal welfare organisations can very easily be better than transioning to a career in global health and development or AI safety.

^{^}
I estimate cage-free campaigns are 462 times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities, and that the Shrimp Welfare Project has been 64.3 k times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities.

lauren_meeJan 21*21

I just want to say thank you for highlighting this Vasco!

I am a big fan of SMA but my largest concern is their quit your job tag line. Firstly, I can only speak for the animal advocacy space but there are a very limited number of high impact roles for people to pivot into…. secondly, if it’s in the non profit world they are directing them to it will take some time to pivot (so try to not be unemployed first) thirdly, many of these people are in great companies where they could potentially do much more if they were activated or ETG.

Anecdotally I’ve had a handful of people come from them asking for career advise who had quit their job and tbh my first thought is can you get your job back….

Vasco Grilo🔸Jan 302

Thanks, Lauren!

Firstly, I can only speak for the animal advocacy space but there are a very limited number of high impact roles for people to pivot into…

I think this applies more broadly. Overwhelmingly based on data about global health and development interventions, Benjamin Todd concludes "it’s defensible to say that the best of all interventions in an area are about 10 times more effective than the mean, and perhaps as much as 100 times". If so, and jobs are uniformly distributed across interventions, a person in a random job within an area donating 10 % of their gross salary to the best interventions in the area can have 1 (= 0.1*10) to 10 (= 0.1*100) times as much impact from donations as from their direct work. In reality, there will be more jobs in less cost-effective interventions, as the best interventions only account for a small fraction of the overall funding. Based on Benjamin's numbers, if there are 10 times as many people in jobs as cost-effective as a random one as in the best jobs, a person in a random job within an area donating 10 % of their gross salary to the best interventions in the area would be 10 (= 1*10) to 100 (= 10*10) times as impactful as a person with the same job not donating.

James HerbertJan 159

Yeah they’re definitely not (currently) promoting E2G. In fact, IIRC, the chapter that explicitly discusses EA is quite negative about E2G-flavoured EA (primarily because of FTX).

Lorenzo Buonanno🔸Jan 152

Do they mention effective giving or collaborate with Doneer Effectief/the Tien Procent Club?

James HerbertJan 157

Bregman is still listed as an ambassador for Doneer Effectief. He used to be heavily involved in the Tien Procent Club, but that’s no longer the case. Of course, you’re likely aware of the GWWC video he participated in. But these are all things that happened in the past.

As for SMA, the only thing they’ve done regarding EG was their collaboration with Doneer Effectief, us, and the Tien Procent Club for the recent sponsored walk. That was quite a big event, and several SMA staff members attended, but SMA didn’t make a particularly large contribution. I don’t think they’ll be involved this year. Beyond that, I don’t believe they engage with EG at all—though perhaps that will change.

Regarding the book, frustratingly, I can’t find my copy at the moment. The only part I recall is the section I mentioned previously on the Forum. That said, I hesitate to say it’s the only reference, as I might simply be more attuned to remembering the negatives.

EDIT: I forgot something! SMA did a podcast episode with the Director of Doneer Effectief, Bram. And whilst googling for that I came across this edition of their newsletter, which talks about EG.

Patrick Gruban 🔸Jan 154

None of the organizations are mentioned in the book, except for a footnote about GWWC. However, Rob Mather and AMF get a whole chapter, which includes fundraising for bednets.

JasonJan 1123

While Moral Ambition incorporates many EA principles, it steers readers toward its own School of Moral Ambition rather than EA organizations. For instance, 80,000 Hours—a natural fit for this topic—gets just a single footnote. This contrasts with EA’s collaborative spirit, where mutual recommendation and shared resources are the norm.

This makes sense to me, though, based on what Bregman is likely trying to accomplish here. [Caveat: I haven't read the book as I only read English.]

In the world of doing good effectively ("DGE"), we can think of EA as something like a planet. It metaphorically has enough mass to create a round shape due to its gravity, and has cleared its orbit of smaller objects. It's big enough, and too dependent on outside forces for its funding or other critical elements. The cynical rough analogy -- which I do not fully endorse -- would be that Open Phil is the planet, and various other orgs are -- in a gravitational sense -- satellites of Open Phil to a considerable extent. By that I mean that they lack practical independence from their predominant funder and are rather suspectable to changes in its thinking.

Assuming Bregman has important philosophical differences from Open Phil and/or the EA ecosystem, he probably doesn't want to create a satellite of the EA / Open Phil planetary system. That could be for philosophical reasons (e.g., a more neartermist approach vs. believing Open Phil is likely to move increasingly longtermist over time) or for practical reasons (e.g., trying to reach people and tap resources not practically available to EA for optics or cultural reasons). When and if SMA gets larger, it may be in a position to interface with EA on a planet-to-planet basis the way GiveWell can now. I doubt it could do so now.

No community can be all things to all people, and besides redundancy limits the risks of single points of failure. SMA may be intended as a somewhat more populist / accessible, somewhat more "vanilla" flavor of DGE than the EA community, and I don't think it could accomplish those ends very well as an EA satellite. Although there are tradeoffs, I think it's probably good on balance to have a few more planetary systems in the DGE star system.

Martijn KlopJan 1418

AFAIK, the fact that SMA takes a different stance on 'distancing' or differentiating itself from the EA community compared to, say, Ambitious Impact, is because the reputation of EA is just really very different in the US than in Europe. A lot more toxic, that is.

If they only had plans to launch in NL, Germany and other European countries, I think they would have been a bit less careful to set up their own separate brand / community and maintain some distance.

Nevertheless, they've generally expressed the desire to not be branded an 'ea-organisation' by people in or outside the community (stressing they take inspiration from other groups and schools of thougt too*) so I think people should respect that :)

*Including the Nader's Raiders which I guess is also not the most uncontroversial in the US but old enough that people don't get upset about it lol

Felix Wolf 🔸Jan 1117

I gifted the book to a student and got the following feedback:

"Hi Felix! Greetings from the Eifel! I hope you have a wonderful time between the years! I'm already past page 200! Your book is enormously helpful! Thank you for this gift! I'm working through it carefully. Much of it holds enormous potential! [...]" (translated with deepl)

I also gave the book to a colleague who's changing jobs (~50 years old) as a departing gift because of the tips on how to avoid being a 'noble loser' who sacrifices his impact because he cannot compromise.

I listened to the audiobook and liked it for the accurate reminder of the basic principles, but also for the broader perspective. I had never thought about the founder of AMF before. It was really interesting to learn more about the person behind the organisation.

Can recommend.

Manuel AllgaierJan 916

I read the Dutch version earlier last year and really enjoyed it! Interesting stories (e.g. how Ralph Nader established car safety) and fun to read. Reminded me of What We Owe The Future in some ways.

AIM (Charity Entrepreneurship) gets an entire chapter, and is the main EA org he writes about.

Curious that 80k is hardly mentioned at all. I wonder if that's a conscious choice because he did not want to recommend 80k, or it simply did not fit in his story. Maybe Rutger resonates more with neartermist EA and therefore left out longtermist orgs like 80k. The cause areas the School for Moral Ambition (SMA) prioritzed so far in their fellowship were also more neartermist: alternative protein & tobacco control.

NickLaingJan 1017

If your bent is neartermist EA, it would sadly make some sense to almost completely leave out 80k due to their longtermist bent at the moment.

Lorenzo Buonanno🔸Jan 1216

I used to think the same, but now I see that many GWWC pledgers and donors mention 80k as the reason why they're pledging or donating, often to neartermist causes.

I've also heard several stories like this one of people being able to do more good in a neartermist cause thanks to 80k.

I think we tend to overestimate how common it is to consider "consequentialist cosmopolitanism" when thinking about doing good in the world. The vast majority of people don't consider important things like counterfactuals, or that they can help many more people abroad.

See for example Part 2 and Part 3 of the 80k career guide: I think they can definitely be valuable for an introduction to neartermist EA.

You could maybe say that Probably Good's career guide is better, so it makes sense to omit 80k, but I don't know if they cover all the neartermist-valuable topics covered by 80k.

The 80k job board also has a lot of non-longtermist roles (but maybe it's a subset of the Probably Good job board, I'm not sure)

David TJan 145

I used to think the same, but now I see that many GWWC pledgers and donors mention 80k as the reason why they're pledging or donating, often to neartermist causes.

How many of them have made that choice recently though? I know 80k still talks about earning to give (which IIRC it was once the major proponent of) and Givewell recommended charities in its intro and hosts all sorts on its podcasts and job boards, but its "recommended careers" is basically all longtermism (or EA community/research stuff) and 80k are explicit on what their priorities are and that this doesn't include "neartermist" causes.

So I don't think it's surprising that Rutger doesn't recommend them if he doesn't share (or even actively disagrees with?) those priorities even if his current focus on persuading mid-career professionals to look into alternative proteins and tobacco prevention sounds very EA-ish in other respects. I'm curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if he's even aware of them?

Lorenzo Buonanno🔸Jan 144

How many of them have made that choice recently though?

A lot!^[1]

80k seems to mostly care about x-risk, but (perhaps surprisingly) their messaging is not just "Holy Shit, X-Risk" or "CEOs are playing Russian roulette with you and your children".

They instead also cover a lot of cause-neutral EA arguments (e.g. scope sensitivity and the importance of effectiveness)

So I don't think it's surprising that Rutger doesn't recommend them if he doesn't share (or even actively disagrees with?) those priorities even if his current focus on persuading mid-career professionals to look into alternative proteins and tobacco prevention sounds very EA-ish in other respects.

Yeah agree with this, but I still think that 80k is more than useless for altruists who don't value the long-term future, or are skeptical of 80k's approach to trying to influence it.

I'm curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if he's even aware of them?

My understanding is that the SMA team knows much more about the space than I do, so I'm sure they are aware of them if I'm aware of them.

^{^}
I don't have an exact number, but I would conservatively guess more than 100 people and more than $100k in total donations for 2024

PabloJan 1111

80k has made important contributions to our thinking about career choice, as seen e.g. in their work on replaceability, career capital, personal fit, and the ITN framework. This work does not assume a position on the neartermism vs. longtermism debate, so I think the author’s neartermist sympathies can’t fully explain or justify the omission.

NickLaingJan 1210

Thanks pablo I completely agree with the amazing contributions and work thinking about all those important career related things.

Although like your say the work doesn't assume a position, the current website and materials kind of do.

And if you take the snapshot in time now of 80k and send a more naive EA interested person to their website, you still get a longtermist bent feel even though I agree that's not what's behind it.

Erich_Grunewald 🔸Jan 912

He reframes EA concepts in a more accessible way, such as replacing “counterfactuals” with the sports acronym “VORP” (Value Over Replacement Player).

And here I was thinking hardly a soul read my suggesting this framing ...

Michał TerpiłowskiMay 114

Rutger just appeared on Sam Harris' podcast: https://youtu.be/ofQ6CMZpsKQ?si=QLjI-uTztwybnMZE

NickLaingMay 122

Nice one - I listened to 26 minutes (was great) then got stuck behind a pay wall :D

Jakob LohmarJan 119

Does he explicitely reject some EA ideas (e.g. longtermism) and does he give arguments against them? If not, it seems a bit odd to me to promote a new school that is like EA in most other important respects. It might be good to have this school additionally anyway, but it feels like its relation to EA and what its additional value might be are obvious questions that should be addressed.

JWS 🔸Jan 1212

Reminds me of when an article about Rutger popped up on the Forum a while back (my comments here)

I expect SMA people probably think something along the lines of:

EA funding and hard power is fairly centralised. SMA want more control over what they do/fund/associate with and so want to start their own movement.
EA has become AI-pilled and longtermist. Those who disagree need a new movement, and SMA can be that movement.
EA's brand is terminally tarnished after the FTX collapse. Even though SMA agrees a lot with EA, it needs to market itself as 'not EA' as much as possible to avoid negative social contagion.

Not making a claim myself about whether and to what extent those claims are true.

Lorenzo Buonanno🔸Jan 129

I don't have any insider information, but my speculation would be that they just think that they counterfactually reach more people by having a very separate brand.

i.e. SMA closely related to the EA brand/flavor/way of communicating would counterfactually help X more people do more good than EA by itself, while SMA as a separate movement with its own ideas/style on how to do the most good would counterfactually help Y extra people, and Y > X.

I also think it's likely that SMA believes that for their target audience it would be more valuable to interact with AIM than with 80k or CEA, not necessarily for the 3 reasons you mention.

JWS 🔸Jan 134

I also think it's likely that SMA believes that for their target audience it would be more valuable to interact with AIM than with 80k or CEA, not necessarily for the 3 reasons you mention.

I mean the reasoning behind this seems very close to #2 no? The target audience they're looking at is probably more interested in neartermism than AI/longtermism and they don't think they can get much tractability working with the current EA ecosystem?

Lorenzo Buonanno🔸Jan 142

I mean the reasoning behind this seems very close to #2 no? The target audience they're looking at is probably more interested in neartermism than AI/longtermism and they don't think they can get much tractability working with the current EA ecosystem?

I think 2 and especially 3 are very likely, but I think it's also likely that Bregman was very impressed with AIM, and possibly found it more inspiring than 80k/CEA, and/or more pragmatic, or a better fit for the kind of people he wanted to reach regardless of their views on AI.