Comment Permalink

I resonate deeply with your sadness. What helps me stay anchored is identifying EA primarily as a personal commitment and life philosophy rather than merely as a movement. This perspective keeps my dedication resilient, rooted in the core EA value of boundless determination to better the world, regardless of external disruptions or individual mistakes.

Movements inevitably face setbacks and crises, but the philosophical essence of EA—its unwavering commitment to improving the world—remains solid. The movement serves as a practical tool for amplifying these core values, even if it occasionally falters.

Controversies offer opportunities to recommit individually and collectively to fundamental EA principles such as transparency, humility, and rigorous inquiry. Rather than depending solely on central figures, these moments encourage broader ownership and individual agency.

Ultimately, the enduring strength of EA lies not in flawless execution but in the earnest pursuit of doing the most good we can with the resources available. This foundational ideal, characterized by thoughtful compassion and pragmatic action, is deeply worth preserving.

frin1mo3

Thank you for the view! While I do agree with this and I'm definitely not giving up on the EA ideals, I don't think this actually helps to solve the problem that nowadays, it can be highly problematic to simply promote these ideas using their real name.

This stems from a problem with the movement, not the ideas, but it hurts the ideas as well.

I have already had several experiences when someone knew about EA, but they had a very poor and strongly negative understanding of it, which made them reject the discussion or cooperation from the start.

See in context

I am sad.

by frin

Apr 82 min read 3

31

Building effective altruismCommunityEffective altruism culture

Frontpage

I am sad.

People saying EA is dead.
EAs dissociating with EA.
"An outdated term"
Outrageous. But is it?

I am sad.

Sam, what have you done to us?
What have we done to ourselves by playing along?
Ambition is useful. But where has humility gone?

I am sad.

Should I even?...
Instead of being proud to be a part of this...
...should my EA org even admit being EA?
What will people think of it?
Is EA a PR hazard now?

I am sad.

Doubting whether EA is even good.
How has it come to this?
EA was supposed to be a beacon.
The light in a world many people consider dark.

The spoils of power.
The spoils of not living up to our own standards.
What can be build can crumble.

I am sad.

Everyone jumping the meme train. We have created our own ladders of prestige to get stuck in.
Do people even have their own opinion? Do I?

Where has agency gone?
Doubting if my idea is EA enough to be worth attention. As I should be.
Forget this.
I take the easy path. Easier to climb someone else's ladder than to create my own.
Only the cool kids are allowed to do something new.
Except, no, everyone is. And they "know". But they do not know.

I am sad.

I remember what we were.
I have never known a more open, honest, and virtuous community.
A genuine joy to be in.
Not what it used to be.
Don't blame Sam, though.

I am sad.

Should I even try to rescue this colossus, or let it die?
If it would at least die gracefully and quietly, being grateful it happened....
But no, it would scream and shout and then mumble in pain for years, seeking it's glory days.
And it should.

I am sad.

It was so great, though! Perhaps the greatest idea to have ever been thought.

How can there be anything better, in principle, than to try to do the best we can,
and using the best tools available to humanity to uncover what that is?
What better thing there even could be than follow this abstract ideal?

But people are not the ideal. The movement is not the ideal.
Such is life. Mistakes were made, mistakes will be made. It was to be expected.
But it did not have to kill us.

I am sad.

Will we ever rise again?
Have we even fallen, though?
I am confused.

I am sad.

31 Reactions

Comments3

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 5:54 PM

Brad West🔸1mo11

frin1mo3

This stems from a problem with the movement, not the ideas, but it hurts the ideas as well.

Yarrow🔸22d5

When I was most involved in in-person EA organizing/outreach/activism around 2015 to 2017, it seemed to me at the time that the focus of the movement was something roughly like this:

Global poverty: 80%

Animal welfare: 15%

AI and existential risk: 5%

Now, organizations like 80,000 Hours and individuals like Will MacAskill are saying they’re pivoting to focusing exclusively on AGI. Judging from what I see online, it seems like the focus of the movement is currently something like:

AGI: 95%

Global poverty and animal welfare: 5%

It seems like the movement has really changed. It started as a movement around charity effectiveness in the cause area of global poverty, and now it’s a movement or community devoted to talking about AGI. This is a big change and it has probably alienated a lot of people who formerly felt an affinity for the EA movement, as well as put off people who would have been interested in what the EA movement used to be but who aren’t on board with the current movement’s beliefs about AGI.

I recently wrote about why I don’t believe in the predictions of AGI within 5 years here. For me, at this point, the EA movement has almost completely killed off its credibility. I don’t think there is any way to undo what has been done. The “effective altruism” label is now owned by people who think AGI is coming soon and as the years tick on and it becomes increasingly clear AGI is not coming soon, the term “effective altruism” will be seen by more mainstream parts of the world as even more fringe, weird, and dubious than it is today.

I’m not sure what people who don’t believe in near-term AGI and who want to focus on global poverty and/or animal welfare should do. Maybe there would be value in creating some kind of spin-off term? A term that creates a clear distinction between “effective altruism the movement about AGI” and “a movement that focuses on charity effectiveness in the cause area(s) of global poverty and/or animal welfare”. The benefit of coining and popularizing such a term would be to draw a clear distinction between what EA used to be ten years ago and what EA is now.

Using such a term wouldn’t necessarily require disavowing and distancing yourself or your organization from the EA movement or from self-identified EA organizations. Maybe some people would want to do that (I don’t know), but the primary purpose would just be to clearly differentiate your beliefs and your focus from the people who believe in a relatively imminent Singularity and who treat that as the most important thing in the world to focus on right now.