Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Will's avatar

I think this is a good piece overall but:

"...weird nerds are increasingly marginalized as things optimize for legibility to large central funding sources. At this point, the movement has died....This really took off by 2018 or 2019. Since thing, EA has been a zombie movement that exists to launder the decision making of a certain kind of billionaire as the process of a distributed cognition."

just strikes me as sort of perfectly anti-correct. In many ways, EA is laundering weird ideas /into/ respectability. This is a totally conscious strategy, there are probably dozens of EA forum posts implicitly saying this.

This is Good. Laundering weird ideas into respectability is the basis of large-scale values change. If only weird nerds hold ideas, they have an intrinsically limited influence.

Mass persuasion (eg, success for EAs) basically looks like this.

And your suggestions: "Prohibitions on allowing people with histories as lobbyists, journalists, and similar to sit on EA decision committees." are basically saying [don't engage with powerful mainstream people], which is fine if you have some magical source of power that doesn't rely on already extant elites, but dumb if you. Some tech elites (Balaji, Elon, etc.) can effectively do this, but they don't work in policy, and this is a sustainable strategy for a whole movement.

Expand full comment
Rob McMillin's avatar

The short course, in my mind, is my rule "Never give money to big charities", but this assumes the reason to give to charities is to accomplish the aims you intended rather than as a tax writeoff.

Home run after home run, Robot.

Expand full comment
31 more comments...

No posts