And the amount spent in ads, I think X ads to promote EAG might be a new thing

I think using an anonymous account helps a bit with that, especially when writing praise feels cringy

I probably need to stop saying that AI hasn't passed the Turing test yet then. I guess it has!

By that definition, ELIZA would have passed the Turing test in 1966

But I do really like that these researchers have put the test online for people to try!

https://turingtest.live/

Thanks for sharing, it's an interesting experience.

As you mention for now it's really easy to tell humans and AIs apart, but I found it surprisingly hard to convince people I was human.

I think a main argument related to that perspective is that you shouldn't tax wealth but you should tax consumption (holding billions in stocks and bonds has positive externalities, buying a yacht fleet has negative externalities)

I obviously don't agree with it, so I'm likely not presenting the strongest version of the arguments, but you can see an example of people holding this view in the twitter screenshot above, and I think it's not uncommon

Yes that's a fair point. Do you think the claim itself is false?

I was under the impression that many YMBY/Abundance/Progress Studies-minded EA communities were operating with that theory of change, am I wrong?

Thanks for replying with data. I think what matters for EA fundraising strategy is the relative share of wealth in the top 0.1% and in the top 1% (or maybe top 10%), it's great that the share of wealth in the bottom 50% is increasing, but I don't expect many there to be significant donors (with important but rare exceptions).

It's also not clear to me how liquid is the wealth in social insurance programs, I don't expect it to be a viable source of donations/influence/impact (but of course it's great that more people are covered by insurance)

I also think that I was mistaken to mention "the last decades", as "the last 5-10 years" seems a more relevant time frame for changes in EA strategy.

In my opinion the perception that inequality is increasing could also be due to relative comparisons between the top 1%-10% and the top 0.1%-0.01%, as the former becomes relatively less influential.

Another random anecdote: I was reading the Wikipedia page of an ultramarathon runner, and apparently her father is a famous mathematician

I don't find it concerning at all.

People who don't come from privileged backgrounds (e.g. the 700 million people living on less of $2.15/day) don't have the resources to worry about helping others effectively, the vast majority doesn't speak English, and so on.

Random anecdote: I'm in a hospital for a minor visit right now, and I don't find it concerning at all that many doctors here are likely to be from privileged backgrounds

I think looking at the top 1% is a bit misleading, as the top 0.1% and the top 1% had very different growth rates in the last decades.

https://archive.is/MFFPq

If the relative amount of wealth in the top 0.1% increases compared to the top 1%, it makes sense for EA to prioritize more the former (assuming constant relative tractability)