Thanks for all of the resources. I’ve updated considerably in favor of AMF as a means to improving third-world conditions.
We simply don’t know enough yet. Thus, I prefer a value of information approach.
Conceded. Really I’m just lamenting that we aren’t non-deterministic problem solvers. I still think that there are better options out there, but I don’t know what they are and I don’t have a way to differentiate the better from the worse. This is frustrating, but it’s not an argument. My desire to donate to AMF is increased, and I’ve decreased my probability that GiveWell is too risk adverse.
I still believe that there are under-funded charities with long-term goals that provide more utiilty for my dollar (as per my other top-level comment), but this is due to viewing the problem space as different in some areas. I am now much closer to agreement with your points in the third-world assistance space.
Do you think I’m being misleading?
Yes, a bit. No offense intended. The general article was not misleading, and the intent was well-received. However, I still feel that the tone of this:
But if people were better educated and had more resources, surely they’d be better at handling those problems, whatever they may be. Therefore we should focus on speeding up economic development, right?
These three examples are very common appeals to commonsense. But commonsense hasn’t worked very well in the domain of finding optimal causes.
was somewhat misleading. It felt like an attack on a position which you disagree with without sufficient evidence. To me, it felt like you were providing evidence against X, and then you slipped in a jab against Y, which is related to X but was not covered by the evidence provided. I’m not sure the name for this logical fallacy, but yeah, it felt like you were (perhaps unconsciously) trying to garner support against Y via arguments against related X.
The evidence and reasoning you provided above go a fair way towards arguing your point, and I’ve updated accordingly, but the above quote still seems like somewhat naked and misleading in the original article.
Really I’m just lamenting that we aren’t non-deterministic problem solvers. I still think that there are better options out there, but I don’t know what they are and I don’t have a way to differentiate the better from the worse. This is frustrating, but it’s not an argument. My desire to donate to AMF is increased, and I’ve decreased my probability that GiveWell is too risk adverse.
I am very sympathetic to that sentiment. And I’m glad to see someone updating quickly and properly.
~
No offense intended.
I’m not offended. I just want to make sure to correct the article, because I don’t want to be misleading.
~
To me, it felt like you were providing evidence against X, and then you slipped in a jab against Y, which is related to X but was not covered by the evidence provided.
That’s certainly possible. What would you say X and Y are?
I think X is the position that “economic development will reliably and predictably reduce existential risk” or a weaker claim like “economic development has enough of a chance of reducing existential risk that we should donate to it instead of something else”.
Is Y something like “economic development in the developing world is a reasonable target area for donations”?
X was roughly “we should donate to speculative projects with long term goals” and Y was “we should focus on developing the economy and improving education”.
Arguments supporting “some things are too good to be true” / “I’m very skeptical of speculative projects” were against X. The statement deriding Y (quoted above) seemed out of place, because you did not successfully link economic development and education improvement with the class of speculative long-term charities that you argue against supporting.
For what it’s worth, I still don’t think that public education / economic development fall into that class. They are long term, but their impact is well supported. The arguments that caused me to update were:
1) Reducing disease goes a long way towards stimulating the economy and improving education levels
2) Simply reducing attack vectors goes a long way towards eliminating diseases
3) It is difficult to find other means of economic/educational stimulus that are more effective (after adjusting for risk)
So while I agree more with your conclusions now, I still think that the jab at promoting economic development / education is out of place.
In other words, the current connotation of the article (with respect to economic stimulus) is “you think you should fund education/economic growth, but you should actually fund AMF instead”, whereas I think the correct connotation is more like “even if you want to fund education/economic growth, AMF is the best way to do it”.
Thanks for all of the resources. I’ve updated considerably in favor of AMF as a means to improving third-world conditions.
Conceded. Really I’m just lamenting that we aren’t non-deterministic problem solvers. I still think that there are better options out there, but I don’t know what they are and I don’t have a way to differentiate the better from the worse. This is frustrating, but it’s not an argument. My desire to donate to AMF is increased, and I’ve decreased my probability that GiveWell is too risk adverse.
I still believe that there are under-funded charities with long-term goals that provide more utiilty for my dollar (as per my other top-level comment), but this is due to viewing the problem space as different in some areas. I am now much closer to agreement with your points in the third-world assistance space.
Yes, a bit. No offense intended. The general article was not misleading, and the intent was well-received. However, I still feel that the tone of this:
was somewhat misleading. It felt like an attack on a position which you disagree with without sufficient evidence. To me, it felt like you were providing evidence against X, and then you slipped in a jab against Y, which is related to X but was not covered by the evidence provided. I’m not sure the name for this logical fallacy, but yeah, it felt like you were (perhaps unconsciously) trying to garner support against Y via arguments against related X.
The evidence and reasoning you provided above go a fair way towards arguing your point, and I’ve updated accordingly, but the above quote still seems like somewhat naked and misleading in the original article.
I am very sympathetic to that sentiment. And I’m glad to see someone updating quickly and properly.
~
I’m not offended. I just want to make sure to correct the article, because I don’t want to be misleading.
~
That’s certainly possible. What would you say X and Y are?
I think X is the position that “economic development will reliably and predictably reduce existential risk” or a weaker claim like “economic development has enough of a chance of reducing existential risk that we should donate to it instead of something else”.
Is Y something like “economic development in the developing world is a reasonable target area for donations”?
X was roughly “we should donate to speculative projects with long term goals” and Y was “we should focus on developing the economy and improving education”.
Arguments supporting “some things are too good to be true” / “I’m very skeptical of speculative projects” were against X. The statement deriding Y (quoted above) seemed out of place, because you did not successfully link economic development and education improvement with the class of speculative long-term charities that you argue against supporting.
For what it’s worth, I still don’t think that public education / economic development fall into that class. They are long term, but their impact is well supported. The arguments that caused me to update were:
1) Reducing disease goes a long way towards stimulating the economy and improving education levels
2) Simply reducing attack vectors goes a long way towards eliminating diseases
3) It is difficult to find other means of economic/educational stimulus that are more effective (after adjusting for risk)
So while I agree more with your conclusions now, I still think that the jab at promoting economic development / education is out of place.
In other words, the current connotation of the article (with respect to economic stimulus) is “you think you should fund education/economic growth, but you should actually fund AMF instead”, whereas I think the correct connotation is more like “even if you want to fund education/economic growth, AMF is the best way to do it”.