This makes me think a lot of EAs just believe OpenAI as a company isn't all that important in the grand scheme AI and x-risks. As in, whether OpenAI is good or bad isn't all that relevant beacuse of how minimal the impact might be given the existing market competition and race dynamics.
Thinking along similar lines as you of EA orgs making stances. And like the idea that Sam Altman or specific actors might be easier to make "targets".
But yeah, I was mainly curious to get a sense of why I haven't seen more action from EA on OpenAI if people agree (with me) that they are so bad for AI safety. Maybe people just don't think OpenAI is bad.
Hahaha, exactly. So then again the question: why hasn't the median EA done more to counteract the harm OpenAI is doing to the world? Or maybe they have and I just don't know about it?
I'm not completely sure, which is why I posed it as a question. I posted this mostly because I didn't see much explicit discussion of this on the Forum and found that rather strange.
But some actions might look like:
key EA figures like MacAskill, Karnosky, Robinson making clear statements along the lines that OpenAI is bad and they do not endorse them
Smth similar for key EA orgs like 80k hours and CEA
A petition within the community that members can sign that they don't approve of OpenAI's actions
EAs publishing op-eds articles decrying OpenAI's actions
Yes! The EA movement is so fascinating beacuse it is such a welcome and refreshing set of values and ideas, but also frustrating in that it feels like it fails in being an effective social movement.
I think one key part of the puzzle for me in understanding this was seeing that EA is, in addition to a professional community, a social community. And the mingling of social and professional interests has created some dynamics which aren't the most effective for the movement itself.
As I discuss in the conclusion, I'm not sure whether the EA movement can be reformed to grow effectively as a social movement. But I am sure that this case study can be very useful for other social movements based on similar values (eg. nerdfighteria, school for moral ambition, effective philanthropy).
I also wish the post was much shorter, but I suppose that's the nature of research projects haha. On the toaster example, that was included to illustrate a point about the ways utilitarian thinking can go against social norms, and I also pointed out in the text that the example was one that someone made up, not one that is representative of the EA community.
I agree with your point that my post doesn't support that overall claim too well that EA is 'ineffective'. I added that to the title only at the last moment and in retrospect it was a bit click-baity. I've removed that now, thanks for pointing that out. Content-wise neither was it my intention to make a claim about EA's overall effectiveness / impact, but to compile and understand all the ways the EA movement has been hindered in its goals due to the way it's organized and structured.
I also wish I had better and more concrete recommendations. Although, one of the main reason I don't (the other being that this was already too long) is that the way I see it, change needs to come from EA leadership due to EA's power dynamic. This post was geared more towards understanding causes and effects for the community and others interetsed in 'doing good better'.
I don't believe I'm 100% right, but this post is based on my best understanding of where the EA movement goes structurally wrong and I'm hoping someone will find something useful in this analysis.
Yes! I don't deny the positive impact that has come from EA, and the focus on quantification, and have tried to touch on that in the conclusion section as well. I very much believe everyone would benefit from better use of quantification, evidence, and rationality.
I'm not sure I've got the arguments or evidence to say whether EA's utilitarian influence is net positive or negative (and I've seen arguments in both directions), but that's not my point here. I'm not arguing from a utilitarian basis. I'm trying to paint a picture of the scope and impact of utilitarian thought's negative impacts on EA to try to help EAs and other people invested in doing good better evaluate the impacts and viability of such an ideology. This is only meant to be one piece of the puzzle.
I mostly agree, and admittidly I don't have very great suggestions for what I want the community to do, and also wish the report was able to offer more in that regard. My main claim around utilitarianism is that (1) the movement aligns highly with utilitarian thought and practices, and (2) this ideological belief has motivated many harmful actions.
What I want is for the movement and community to recognize these harms and take this information into account when thinking about 'EA beliefs' and being a part of EA.
That's helpful context thanks!
This makes me think a lot of EAs just believe OpenAI as a company isn't all that important in the grand scheme AI and x-risks. As in, whether OpenAI is good or bad isn't all that relevant beacuse of how minimal the impact might be given the existing market competition and race dynamics.
Thinking along similar lines as you of EA orgs making stances. And like the idea that Sam Altman or specific actors might be easier to make "targets".
But yeah, I was mainly curious to get a sense of why I haven't seen more action from EA on OpenAI if people agree (with me) that they are so bad for AI safety. Maybe people just don't think OpenAI is bad.
Hahaha, exactly. So then again the question: why hasn't the median EA done more to counteract the harm OpenAI is doing to the world? Or maybe they have and I just don't know about it?
I'm not completely sure, which is why I posed it as a question. I posted this mostly because I didn't see much explicit discussion of this on the Forum and found that rather strange.
But some actions might look like:
Yes! The EA movement is so fascinating beacuse it is such a welcome and refreshing set of values and ideas, but also frustrating in that it feels like it fails in being an effective social movement.
I think one key part of the puzzle for me in understanding this was seeing that EA is, in addition to a professional community, a social community. And the mingling of social and professional interests has created some dynamics which aren't the most effective for the movement itself.
As I discuss in the conclusion, I'm not sure whether the EA movement can be reformed to grow effectively as a social movement. But I am sure that this case study can be very useful for other social movements based on similar values (eg. nerdfighteria, school for moral ambition, effective philanthropy).
Hi CB, appreciate this response as well!
I also wish the post was much shorter, but I suppose that's the nature of research projects haha. On the toaster example, that was included to illustrate a point about the ways utilitarian thinking can go against social norms, and I also pointed out in the text that the example was one that someone made up, not one that is representative of the EA community.
I agree with your point that my post doesn't support that overall claim too well that EA is 'ineffective'. I added that to the title only at the last moment and in retrospect it was a bit click-baity. I've removed that now, thanks for pointing that out. Content-wise neither was it my intention to make a claim about EA's overall effectiveness / impact, but to compile and understand all the ways the EA movement has been hindered in its goals due to the way it's organized and structured.
I also wish I had better and more concrete recommendations. Although, one of the main reason I don't (the other being that this was already too long) is that the way I see it, change needs to come from EA leadership due to EA's power dynamic. This post was geared more towards understanding causes and effects for the community and others interetsed in 'doing good better'.
Thank you! That's also my hope :)
I don't believe I'm 100% right, but this post is based on my best understanding of where the EA movement goes structurally wrong and I'm hoping someone will find something useful in this analysis.
Yes! I don't deny the positive impact that has come from EA, and the focus on quantification, and have tried to touch on that in the conclusion section as well. I very much believe everyone would benefit from better use of quantification, evidence, and rationality.
I'm not sure I've got the arguments or evidence to say whether EA's utilitarian influence is net positive or negative (and I've seen arguments in both directions), but that's not my point here. I'm not arguing from a utilitarian basis. I'm trying to paint a picture of the scope and impact of utilitarian thought's negative impacts on EA to try to help EAs and other people invested in doing good better evaluate the impacts and viability of such an ideology. This is only meant to be one piece of the puzzle.
I mostly agree, and admittidly I don't have very great suggestions for what I want the community to do, and also wish the report was able to offer more in that regard. My main claim around utilitarianism is that (1) the movement aligns highly with utilitarian thought and practices, and (2) this ideological belief has motivated many harmful actions.
What I want is for the movement and community to recognize these harms and take this information into account when thinking about 'EA beliefs' and being a part of EA.