What SIAI/FHI are trying to do has very high expected value, but in general, because unaccountable charities often exhibit gross inefficiency at accomplishing their stated goals, donating to organizations with low levels of accountability may hurt the causes that the charities work toward (on account of resulting in the charities ballooning and making it harder for more promising organizations that work on the same causes to emerge).
I don’t think that SIAI and FHI are less-than-averagely accountable. I think that the standard for accountability in the philanthropic world is in general is very low and that there’s an opportunity for rationalists to raise it by insisting that the organizations that they donate to demonstrate high levels of accountability.
You want to shut down SIAI/FHI in the hope that some other organization will spring up that otherwise wouldn’t have, and cite lack of accountability as the justification, whilst admitting that most charities are very unaccountable? Why should a new organization be more accountable? Where is your evidence that SIAI/FHI are preventing such other organizations from coming into existence?
I’m saying that things can change. In recent times there’s been much more availability of information than there was in the past. As such, interested donors have means of holding charities more accountable than they did in the past. The reason that the standard for accountability in the philanthropic world is so low is because donors do not demand high accountability. If we start demanding high accountability then charities will become more accountable.
Last year GiveWell leveraged 1 million dollars toward charities demonstrating unusually high accountability. Since GiveWell is a young organization (founded in 2007) I expect the amount leveraged to grow rapidly over the next few years.
(Disclaimer: The point of my above remark is not to promote GiveWell in particular, GiveWell itself may need improvement, I’m just pointing to GiveWell as an example showing that incentivizing charities based on accountability is possible.)
Since SIAI/FHI are fairly new, it’s reasonable to suppose that they just happened to be the first organizations on the ground and that over time there will be more and more people interested in funding/creating/(working at) organizations with goals similar to SIAI and FHI. I believe that it’s best for most donors interested in the causes that SIAI and FHI are working toward to place money in donor advised funds, commit to giving the money to an organization devoted to existential risk demonstrating high accountability and to hold out for such an organization.
(Disclaimer: This post is not anti-SIAI/FHI, quite possibly SIAI and FHI are capable of demonstrating high levels of accountability and if/when they do so that they will be worthy of funding, the point is just that they are not presently doing so.)
I must say that this is a remarkably good quality suggestion.
However, going back to the original point of the debate, the discussion was about whether money in the hands of Peter Theil was better than money in the hands of poor Africans.
The counter-factual was not
(money in a donor advised fund to reduce existential risks) versus (money in SIAI account)
The counterfactual was
(money-in-SIAI-account) versus (money spent on alcohol, prostitutes, festivals and other entertainment in the third world)
There’s probably a name for this fallacy but I can’t find it.
He is claiming uncertainty about that, but in this particular thread he is discussing accountability in particular, and you attack the overall conclusion instead of focusing on the particular argument. To fight rationalization, you must resist the temptation to lump different considerations together, and consider each on their own merit, no matter what they argue for.
You must support a good argument, even if it’s used as an argument for destroying the world and torturing everyone for eternity, and you must oppose a bad argument for saving the future. That’s the price you pay for epistemic rationality.
What SIAI/FHI are trying to do has very high expected value, but in general, because unaccountable charities often exhibit gross inefficiency at accomplishing their stated goals, donating to organizations with low levels of accountability may hurt the causes that the charities work toward (on account of resulting in the charities ballooning and making it harder for more promising organizations that work on the same causes to emerge).
What makes you say that SIAI and FHI are less-than-averagely accountable?
I don’t think that SIAI and FHI are less-than-averagely accountable. I think that the standard for accountability in the philanthropic world is in general is very low and that there’s an opportunity for rationalists to raise it by insisting that the organizations that they donate to demonstrate high levels of accountability.
You want to shut down SIAI/FHI in the hope that some other organization will spring up that otherwise wouldn’t have, and cite lack of accountability as the justification, whilst admitting that most charities are very unaccountable? Why should a new organization be more accountable? Where is your evidence that SIAI/FHI are preventing such other organizations from coming into existence?
I’m saying that things can change. In recent times there’s been much more availability of information than there was in the past. As such, interested donors have means of holding charities more accountable than they did in the past. The reason that the standard for accountability in the philanthropic world is so low is because donors do not demand high accountability. If we start demanding high accountability then charities will become more accountable.
Last year GiveWell leveraged 1 million dollars toward charities demonstrating unusually high accountability. Since GiveWell is a young organization (founded in 2007) I expect the amount leveraged to grow rapidly over the next few years.
(Disclaimer: The point of my above remark is not to promote GiveWell in particular, GiveWell itself may need improvement, I’m just pointing to GiveWell as an example showing that incentivizing charities based on accountability is possible.)
Since SIAI/FHI are fairly new, it’s reasonable to suppose that they just happened to be the first organizations on the ground and that over time there will be more and more people interested in funding/creating/(working at) organizations with goals similar to SIAI and FHI. I believe that it’s best for most donors interested in the causes that SIAI and FHI are working toward to place money in donor advised funds, commit to giving the money to an organization devoted to existential risk demonstrating high accountability and to hold out for such an organization.
(Disclaimer: This post is not anti-SIAI/FHI, quite possibly SIAI and FHI are capable of demonstrating high levels of accountability and if/when they do so that they will be worthy of funding, the point is just that they are not presently doing so.)
I must say that this is a remarkably good quality suggestion.
However, going back to the original point of the debate, the discussion was about whether money in the hands of Peter Theil was better than money in the hands of poor Africans.
The counter-factual was not
(money in a donor advised fund to reduce existential risks) versus (money in SIAI account)
The counterfactual was
(money-in-SIAI-account) versus (money spent on alcohol, prostitutes, festivals and other entertainment in the third world)
There’s probably a name for this fallacy but I can’t find it.
How is this a reply to the grandparent?
multifoliaterose is claiming that SIAI/FHI have zero or negative expected value. I claim that his justification for this claim is very flimsy.
He is claiming uncertainty about that, but in this particular thread he is discussing accountability in particular, and you attack the overall conclusion instead of focusing on the particular argument. To fight rationalization, you must resist the temptation to lump different considerations together, and consider each on their own merit, no matter what they argue for.
You must support a good argument, even if it’s used as an argument for destroying the world and torturing everyone for eternity, and you must oppose a bad argument for saving the future. That’s the price you pay for epistemic rationality.