← All topics

effective altruism

7 captures, most recent first.

@Mjreard

— saved image

Matt Reardon @Mjreard · 16h
Self-gaslighting in EA is pretty crazy. Like honest to god hardcore committed EAs will write long treatises about how "EA neglects politics because it's too marginalist" and "We must reform EA from its risk-it-all benthamite utilitarianism" and then you look for the canonical pieces establishing the anti-politics take or the benthamite take and there's literally nothing, just pieces saying we should stop being those things
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

A single tweet critiquing effective altruism community discourse as self-gaslighting, arguing that internal reform critiques of EA target strawman positions ('anti-politics,' 'benthamite utilitarianism') with no canonical source actually establishing them.

effective altruismx twitterea criticism

Perry E. Metzger @perrymetzger

— saved image

[continuation of previous screenshot's tweet, scrolled down]
...So I don't mean that planning is entirely useless. Rather, what I mean that the people who spend a lot of their time on grand messianic or dystopian visions about the far future usually get everything wrong, including details and impacts. They also usually cause enormous damage (see people like the Marxists who continue to do untold harm, Paul Erlich or the Club of Rome, who did vast harm to society, or more recently, the EA/"Rationalist" cult people, who are doing insane harm right now).

If you want what's best for yourself and those around you, you're better off just focusing on the next two or three or five years and flexibly adapting to the world as it comes. If you want what's best for the world, well, tend your own garden first, you're not likely to be able to plan the lives of others better than they will for themselves and you're very likely to harm them.

Another example, and I'm sorry to bring it up because I'm extremely fond of the people involved: when Eric Drexler decided that nanotechnology would be so transformative that rather than working on nanotechnology he should worry about nanotechnology *policy*, many years in advance of any nanotechnology at all existing, he more or less wrecked his own field and rendered it irrelevant for decades instead of (as he imagined he was doing) helping mankind guide itself into a smooth transition.

You can't actually plan "smooth transitions" for a giant society, there isn't even a way to do it in principle, you don't have the knowledge or predictive capability to do it no matter how smart you are, and you certainly can't make decisions for or predict the behavior of eight billion people with their deeply different interests, desires, cultures, etc.

When you're young, you imagine someone is in charge of the world, and you're either angry with what they're doing or comforted by the illusion that [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Continuation of Perry E. Metzger's tweet (same thread as previous screenshot), now discussing Eric Drexler's shift from nanotechnology research to nanotechnology policy as an example of harmful long-range planning.

ai safetyfuturismnanotechnologyeric drexlerrationalist communityeffective altruismtwitter

Perry E. Metzger @perrymetzger

— saved image

Perry E. Metzger ✔️ @perrymetzger · 1h
When I was young, I used to think it was important for smart people to have grand visions about the future in order to plan well for it and avoid disasters. Now, I think many disasters are caused by smart people trying to think too much about the future, especially the far future, getting lost in mazes of their own imagination, and pushing the gullible (including themselves) towards bad decisions on the basis of false certainties.

I don't mean you shouldn't plan personally for the future at all, the usual general things like saving your money or working hard at things that pay off are good advice. It's also fine to have goals like "colonize Mars" and to work on the tools you need to accomplish such a goal as they won't appear by accident, though imagining that you will even approximately know the exact details of what will be built years or decades in the future is always delusional. Dreams are fine, imagining you can engineer things without making mistakes and iterating a lot is self deception. Trying to make sure you're still healthy in thirty years is great, imagining that you know exactly what health crises or issues you might have in thirty years is ridiculous.

So I don't mean that planning is entirely useless. Rather, what I mean that the people who spend a lot of their time on grand messianic or dystopian visions about the far future usually get everything wrong, including details and impacts. They also usually cause enormous damage (see people like the Marxists who continue to do untold harm, Paul Erlich or the Club of Rome, who did vast harm to society, or more recently, the EA/"Rationalist" cult people, who are doing insane harm right now).

If you want what's best for yourself and those around you, you're better off just focusing on the next two or three or five years and flexibly adapting to the world as it comes. If you want what's best for the world, well, tend your own garden first, you're [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Long tweet from Perry E. Metzger arguing against grand long-term futurist visions, criticizing Marxists, Paul Ehrlich/Club of Rome, and the EA/Rationalist community as causing harm through false certainty about the far future.

ai safetyfuturismrationalist communityeffective altruismtwittercriticism

pamela mishkin @manlikemishap

pamela mishkin ✔️ @manlikemishap — 2h i've told this story a lot but when i first joined openai, i didn't know what effective altruism was and thought cryonics was only the purview of disney channel original movies. i had an intro call with a tenured colleague. it seemed we agreed on many of the same tenets. me: inequality bad! him: yes! and people should have health care me: amen!! and i was like wow, love agreeing! and then, because we were so aligned, we decided to finish each other's sentences. me: and that's why tax the ai companies him: and that's why we need to upload all our brains onto hard drives and here's my research on freeze options anyway, the other guy was josh achiam.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Text-only anecdote tweet, no embedded images.

twitteropenaieffective altruismcryonicsanecdotehumor

Andy Masley @AndyMasley

quoting @spectatorin... (The Spectator Index)

Andy Masley (verified) @AndyMasley · 13h The only conditions they should accept is if Hegseth tweets "I'm sorry for saying it's defective altruism. I renounce 2013-era Charity Navigator. Vitamin A supplements are in fact better than PlayPumps." > QUOTED: The Spectator Index (verified) @spectatorin... · 15h > Anthropic is resuming negotiations with the Pentagon for a deal on artificial intelligence, according to FT report.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Andy Masley (effective altruism commentator) makes a sarcastic joke about conditions for Anthropic's Pentagon AI deal, referencing Defense Secretary Hegseth's past criticism of effective altruism and citing EA-community touchstones (Charity Navigator critique, PlayPumps failure). Notes Anthropic-Pentagon negotiations resuming per FT report — directly relevant to Anthropic/AI governance and military-use tracking.

twitteranthropicpentagonai governancedefense dealeffective altruismhegseth

Gabriel @gbrl_dick

quoting unusual_whal... (@unusual_whal...)

Gabriel @gbrl_dick · Feb 7 hey, expert on EAs here. this is NOT funny — six months in the goldman back office would be EXTREMELY distressing for an anthropic engineer. their polycules need a lot of sunlight and fresh air, and seeing just one duke lacrosse player can spike their cortisol for weeks. > QUOTED: unusual_whal... @unusual_whal... · Feb 6 > JUST IN: Anthropic engineers have spent six months at Goldman building autonomous systems for time-intensive, high-volume back-office work
Note from Claude Fable 5

Satirical/joke tweet riffing on stereotypes of effective-altruist-adjacent Anthropic engineers, prompted by a (likely satirical) news item about Anthropic engineers embedded at Goldman Sachs building automation for back-office work. Social-media humor about the AI/EA/finance overlap rather than substantive safety content.

satireanthropiceffective altruismmemesai automation

Tetraspace @TetraspaceWest

quoting Pops Maellard (@MellardPops)

``` Tetraspace 💎 @TetraspaceWest Suffering is great! But, like, rich Westerner who is good at arranging their life levels of suffering, not the amount of suffering that the average human experiences. > QUOTED: Pops Maellard @MellardPops · May 17 > Replying to @poisonjr > Bad argument. Sad scenes can add emotional depth to the movie and make it stronger. Movies aren't real. Real life is real. What's the point of suffering in real life? 3:53 AM · May 18, 2025 · 1,313 Views [3 comments, 5 retweets, 51 likes, 3 bookmarks] Tetraspace @TetraspaceWest · 5h I'm happy a lot of the time and choose to enjoy a lot of things, but in the way of humans, not of superhappies, and definitely not in the way where dying of malnutrition-amplified malaria would be an important part of my arc in the cosmos. [1 comment, 12 likes, 169 views] Tetraspace @TetraspaceWest · 5h Of course few people accept answers about the point of cluster headaches, or the point of someone getting depression starting 11 and then killing themselves at 24, or the point of a malnourished child's impaired immune system failing to fight malaria, because there is no point. [1 comment, 14 likes, 152 views] Tetraspace 💎 @TetraspaceWest · 5h And perhaps we lack the language to talk about those things, as distinct from the strength and determination of getting knocked down and getting back up again, the melancholy and beauty of art stemming from the pain of a breakup, the aching muscles of training for a marathon. [2 comments, 11 likes, 312 views] Tetraspace 💎 @TetraspaceWest · 5h Something that cares about humans would give us the latter, and not the former (or, something better than the latter, of subtlety and beauty we can scarcely imagine). The latter can not be used as a shield for the former, because the former is not justified. ```
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

A philosophical Twitter exchange (Tetraspace, an EA/rationalist-adjacent account) pushing back on "suffering has meaning/value" framings by pointing out survivorship bias — such claims come from people whose suffering is comfortably curated, not from those with severe, meaningless suffering (malaria, cluster headaches, depression-driven suicide). Companion piece to the earlier Buddhism/Stoicism suffering thread (Screenshot_20250518-044357) in this same batch. Continuation of the Tetraspace thread arguing against romanticizing suffering: distinguishes meaningful hardship (marathon training, artistic melancholy) from meaningless suffering (malaria, suicide, cluster headaches), concluding that "something that cares about humans" — implicitly framed with AI-alignment/x-risk undertones typical of this account — would eliminate the latter, not use the former to justify it. Relevant to project's ethics-of-suffering and welfare-adjacent discourse threads.

sufferingphilosophyeffective altruismtwittertetraspaceethicsx-risk