EA Intro Fellowship

• @blu3mo: I’m trying to join a group called Columbia Effective Altruism. It seems like a community where I can have discussions about technology and the philosophy of society. It sounds fun, but I’m a bit wary of its cult-like vibe, so please help me if I get brainwashed(?)

• Syllabus: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMl-eQhevlkkRxezc28wtdlNbjdArUMx0ILODjvNeCs/edit

• Week 1

  • On effective altruism:
    • Introduction to Effective Altruism (15 mins.)
      • Is it not strange to compare the number of deaths caused by actual terrorism, which receives a lot of funding, with deaths caused by pandemics, which do not receive much funding?
      • The assumption that all human lives are equal seems quite fragile if the basis for determining what is good is empathy, which can conflict with one’s own emotions.

      • People in effective altruism often end up focusing on issues that seem counterintuitive, obscure or exaggerated. But this is because it’s more impactful to work on the issues that are neglected by others (all else equal), and these issues are (almost by definition) going to be unconventional ones.

      • The claim that goals other than advancing AI are neglected.
      • If we prioritize animal life, should it be considered equal to human life or only 10% as valuable? This connects with the questions raised in 635085b579e1130000f65621.
      • It seems difficult to compare “which is better” even if we can evaluate what is good or bad.
      • How much are they trying to quantify these evaluations?
      • However, the examples of “good” mentioned in the document do seem effective, and if there is time to debate whether 10.1 or 10.2 is greater, it seems like we should focus on the good of 10.1.
      • Values
        • Everyone’s life is equal.
          • This seems to be understood once we understand 635085b579e1130000f65621.
      • Things I’m curious about
        • I’m curious about the line between belief/emotion-based aspects and reason-based aspects.
          • If it is emotion-based, it would be ineffective but satisfying to provide support. Or is it because there is reason that realizes it is ineffective and cannot be satisfied, that we strive to be effective?
      • Definition of “good”

        • That said, typically in effective altruism, ‘doing good’ is tentatively understood to mean enabling others to have lives that are healthy, happy, fulfilled; in line with their wishes; and free from avoidable suffering – to have lives with greater wellbeing.

        • Effective altruism has this focus because increasing wellbeing is a goal that is important to many people. That isn’t to say that only increasing wellbeing matters, and in practice people in effective altruism have many other values.

          • Are they estimating the benefits for the majority of people?
        • The definition of “good” varies for each person, but since it generally overlaps, let’s collaborate to maximize the good in each person’s value, right?
    • Four Ideas You Already Agree With (5 mins.)
    • The world is much better; The world is awful; The world can be much better (5 mins.)
      • It seems like a discussion about focusing not only on the current awful state of the world but also on the changes that make it better than before and can make it even better.
  • On scope sensitivity:
    • On Caring (10 mins)
      • It’s about not being able to properly recognize large numbers.
      • There is a discussion about making donations after evaluating the “correct” value while being aware of biases.

        • Thousands and thousands of birds were oiled by the BP spill alone. After shutting up and multiplying, Daniel realizes (with growing horror) that the amount he actually cares about oiled birds is lower bounded by two months of hard work and/or fifty thousand dollars.

        • However, why is the latter considered the “correct, actual” value?
        • It’s not explicitly stated, and it’s also difficult to solve everything.
          • However, it’s also okay to have such a perspective, which is a weak argument.
          • In that case, it seems like the basis for EA’s life equality does not hold up.
    • Is EA a moral or altruistic way of thinking?
  • On tradeoffs:
    • We are in triage every second of every day (5 mins.)
  • On impact:
    • 500 Million, But Not a Single One More (5 mins.)
  • On scout mindset and thinking clearly:
    • Why you think you’re right – even when you’re wrong (11 mins.)
    • The bottom line (5 mins.)
    • What cognitive biases feel like from the inside (6 mins.)
  • Discussions
    • The focus seems to be more on “how” rather than “what.”
      • Basically, assuming that the majority agrees on what is good, the discussion revolves around how to make it effective.
      • In pursuit of that goal, there is also some discussion about “what.”- It seemed like a call for critical discussion, so it seems promising.

• What about this week?

  • As a reason to avoid Existential Risk, there is Longtermism.
    • Longtermism: