I’m a fan of EA. They are spot on with attempting to help people make better decisions, rather than saying “this is what you should do, because our particular form of Utilitarianism is the best, and if you don’t agree you are simply wrong”. [EDIT: bolded for visibility, because based on the other comments in this thread that point isn’t well advertised. Apparently that’s something they need to work on.]
If I were to make a nitpick, however, it would be this sort of thing:
I’d like to see more numbers, and a framework grounded more in math. Good data probably doesn’t exist, but even just using example calculations with order-of magnitude guesses at figures would be useful. Doing this in material intended for a general audience would drastically limit the expansion of the movement, however. It would be nice to see a few more technical papers put out though, perhaps in a pier-reviewed philosophical journal. I suspect that such a thing would not be an optimal use of their time, however, so I can’t really fault them for a lack of full rigor. I’d like to see it happen some day, though. Perhaps once all the low-hanging fruit is gone, and such methods become necessary to fully optimize for the greatest good.
I’d also like to see more citations in their work. I would be interested in at least reading many of the abstracts of papers that support their positions. I’m primarily interested in existential risk, so when they make broad generalizations that are directed mainly at people trying to help traditional charities, I’d like to be able to make an educated guess as to how strongly this advice applies to me. This is probably easier than the above, since they are already doing some research to back up their advice, but it does require a little extra work.
Lastly, the feel of EA would have put me off of it if I’d discovered it 5 years ago. I suspect that a positive, optimistic feel is better for the movement as a whole. However, perhaps it could gain a footing among cynics and nihilists who would not otherwise donate if an alternative website existed for this sort of target audience. It’s quite possible that such a thing would be bad for the movement as a whole right now, but maybe some day if it grows large enough.
I’m a fan of EA. They are spot on with attempting to help people make better decisions, rather than saying “this is what you should do, because our particular form of Utilitarianism is the best, and if you don’t agree you are simply wrong”. [EDIT: bolded for visibility, because based on the other comments in this thread that point isn’t well advertised. Apparently that’s something they need to work on.]
If I were to make a nitpick, however, it would be this sort of thing:
I’d like to see more numbers, and a framework grounded more in math. Good data probably doesn’t exist, but even just using example calculations with order-of magnitude guesses at figures would be useful. Doing this in material intended for a general audience would drastically limit the expansion of the movement, however. It would be nice to see a few more technical papers put out though, perhaps in a pier-reviewed philosophical journal. I suspect that such a thing would not be an optimal use of their time, however, so I can’t really fault them for a lack of full rigor. I’d like to see it happen some day, though. Perhaps once all the low-hanging fruit is gone, and such methods become necessary to fully optimize for the greatest good.
I’d also like to see more citations in their work. I would be interested in at least reading many of the abstracts of papers that support their positions. I’m primarily interested in existential risk, so when they make broad generalizations that are directed mainly at people trying to help traditional charities, I’d like to be able to make an educated guess as to how strongly this advice applies to me. This is probably easier than the above, since they are already doing some research to back up their advice, but it does require a little extra work.
Lastly, the feel of EA would have put me off of it if I’d discovered it 5 years ago. I suspect that a positive, optimistic feel is better for the movement as a whole. However, perhaps it could gain a footing among cynics and nihilists who would not otherwise donate if an alternative website existed for this sort of target audience. It’s quite possible that such a thing would be bad for the movement as a whole right now, but maybe some day if it grows large enough.