My understanding here is that while this is true, it will discourage the 5%, who will just go work for FAANG and donate money to someone worse (or someone overwhelmed with work), simultaneously losing any chance at a meaningful job. The point being that yes, it’s good to donate, but if everyone donates (since that is the default rat race route), noone will do the important work.
I have the feeling that it stems from focusing on different aspects—sudo -i is lamenting the current incentives which are to study then sell your soul, which is a valid criticism. While a lot of comments seem to focus on the (large) risks of skipping the level grinding. Which are also very valid points—it’s hard to save the world when hungry.
A bit of additional pandering—power laws are a thing, and 95% of people will do more good by donating, but that’s not necessarily true here.
My understanding here is that while this is true, it will discourage the 5%, who will just go work for FAANG and donate money to someone worse (or someone overwhelmed with work), simultaneously losing any chance at a meaningful job. The point being that yes, it’s good to donate, but if everyone donates (since that is the default rat race route), noone will do the important work.
No! If everyone donates, there will be enough money to pay direct workers high salaries. I know this goes contra to the image of the selfless, noble Effective Altruist, but if you want shit to get done you should pay people lots of money to do it.
I think there are a lot of important details we just don’t have the answer to. Is it 5%, 1%, or 0.01% of advice-seekers who should go into direct work rather than indirect/donation careers? What is the rate of mistakes in each of the groups, and how does the advice change that rate?
My modeling is that the exceptional folk will figure it out and do what’s best EVEN when most of the advice is to do the simpler/more-common thing. The less-exceptional folk will NOT recover as easily if they try to make direct contributions and fail.
My understanding here is that while this is true, it will discourage the 5%, who will just go work for FAANG and donate money to someone worse (or someone overwhelmed with work), simultaneously losing any chance at a meaningful job. The point being that yes, it’s good to donate, but if everyone donates (since that is the default rat race route), noone will do the important work.
I have the feeling that it stems from focusing on different aspects—sudo -i is lamenting the current incentives which are to study then sell your soul, which is a valid criticism. While a lot of comments seem to focus on the (large) risks of skipping the level grinding. Which are also very valid points—it’s hard to save the world when hungry.
A bit of additional pandering—power laws are a thing, and 95% of people will do more good by donating, but that’s not necessarily true here.
No! If everyone donates, there will be enough money to pay direct workers high salaries. I know this goes contra to the image of the selfless, noble Effective Altruist, but if you want shit to get done you should pay people lots of money to do it.
i.e. make it so EA is an attractive alternative to tech, thereby solving both problems at once?
Exactly!
I think there are a lot of important details we just don’t have the answer to. Is it 5%, 1%, or 0.01% of advice-seekers who should go into direct work rather than indirect/donation careers? What is the rate of mistakes in each of the groups, and how does the advice change that rate?
My modeling is that the exceptional folk will figure it out and do what’s best EVEN when most of the advice is to do the simpler/more-common thing. The less-exceptional folk will NOT recover as easily if they try to make direct contributions and fail.