[note: I’m not particularly utilitarian nor EA-identifying. This is outside commentary. ]
grossly overestimates how liquid and fungible labor is.
I think the baseline advice that donation is as effective (really, MORE effective) than direct action is DIRECTLY a consequence of labor being non-fungible and money being fungible. Almost every human can be more effective by seeking their comparative advantage across all endeavors than they can by guessing at what’s effective for the narrow EA causes (and this goes double for x-risk EA causes).
It doesn’t overestimate fungibility, it may overestimate motivation effectiveness. Working directly has feedback loops that can keep one satisfied with striving on that dimension. Working indirectly for donation has a large risk of capture and refocus on the consumption-lifestyle that many of your peers are seeking.
There are exceptions, for exceptional individuals who have the right mix of capability, interest, and self-directedness to focus directly on a given problem. But BECAUSE these are exceptional cases, there’s no checklist for when it applies, and the base advice remains correct for the 95% case.
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.
[note: I’m not particularly utilitarian nor EA-identifying. This is outside commentary. ]
I think the baseline advice that donation is as effective (really, MORE effective) than direct action is DIRECTLY a consequence of labor being non-fungible and money being fungible. Almost every human can be more effective by seeking their comparative advantage across all endeavors than they can by guessing at what’s effective for the narrow EA causes (and this goes double for x-risk EA causes).
It doesn’t overestimate fungibility, it may overestimate motivation effectiveness. Working directly has feedback loops that can keep one satisfied with striving on that dimension. Working indirectly for donation has a large risk of capture and refocus on the consumption-lifestyle that many of your peers are seeking.
There are exceptions, for exceptional individuals who have the right mix of capability, interest, and self-directedness to focus directly on a given problem. But BECAUSE these are exceptional cases, there’s no checklist for when it applies, and the base advice remains correct for the 95% case.
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.