This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As someone who has also been around EA for a while and seriously involved, I think that many of the 'core EA' folks still remain deeply committed to the original vision. At recent EA Globals I talked to quite a few people very uncomfortable with the free-spending, involvement with crypto, and political bent of EA. Matthew Yglesias actually gave a talk where he urged EA to remain apolitical citing it as one of the main strengths of the movement.
My take is that unfortunately EA has run into the problem of their original insights becoming 'boring' so to speak. Global health and development, bio risk prevention, nuclear de-armament, climate change, and all the other obvious social change movement have been done to death, and are no longer novel. EA, just like rationalism, tends to run into the problem that they highly value neglectedness over pretty much anything else. This leads to a weird treadmill where whoever points out the most neglected or conventional cause area gets more status, and that take slowly takes over the movement.
The biggest example of this which I think is a much bigger issue than the SBF fiasco is the recent takeover of AI safety obsessives. The FTX did a lot of funding of the worst orgs like Anthropic, but talking with folks at these AI safety places was like talking to a brick wall. They are so clearly disconnected from reality and have takes that are so edgy and contrarian it hurts to listen to them sometimes.
Again overall I think the movement is still in a good place, but it needs to start maturing and stop jumping on board flashy new neglected cause areas just because they are counter-intuitive.
Agree that core EA people seem to be both significantly 'old EA', 'weird', and deeply committed to effectiveness and altruism. Contesting EA should attack that, not say 'they're more democrats'. Although it's quite funny to cite a mattyglesias talk to argue against something becoming more normie democrat!
Also, global health,biorisk,climate change,nuclearhave been normal for several decades before EA even existed - EA's novelty was taking them more seriously and literally, to an extent.
Elaborate? AI is ... definitely a problem, and while AI safety isn't working well (there isn't a clear vision for what AI does, and how its significant 'agency' or ability to compete coexists with 'human utopia', and how any of this AI alignment work coexists with AI's rapid integration into the global economy. Eleizer can at least see that, hence pessimism) but they're not more delusional than the 'AI is just gonna be a fun tool and modern civilization is just gonna vibe for the next thousand years not changing too much no need to worry' or whatever
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link