Take 10 seconds and sign up for my free "5-Bullet Friday" newsletter: go.tim.blog/5-bullet-friday-yt/ Each Friday, you’ll get a short email from me with five things I've discovered that week, sending you off to your weekend with fun and useful things to ponder and try. 🙌
Effective Altruism: "All this unchecked corporate capitalism at best and fraud at worst is going to be for the good of humanity bro, I promise after getting billions of dollars for myself under my name I will give it all back just trust me bro"
MacAskill is not his real last name. William changed it. Why? Effective Altruism is a deep, dark hole. Will, what made you decide to change your last name? Why did Lex delete his podcast with you?
Giving any money is certainly good. But if using your money to help people around you has 100x less impact than putting it to use abroad (due to exchange rates and broader ability to implement preventative solutions in less developed countries) that to me feels like more of a self-serving sort of giving, because you’re effectively saying that you would rather help one person in your local community than 100 people in a far away place just because you can physically participate in the local impact.
Effective Altruism are a well intentioned idea that never worked. (0:35) "Effective Altruism is a "philosophy and a community" that's about TRYING TO FIGURE OUT how can we do as much good as possible", if you send them money, that's what you're funding. They gave everyone the impression that if you send them money they'll send that on to the most effective charities, but it's 'effective altruism' in name only. They neither have a functional system able to determine which ones are more effective (which was originally the whole point), which they'll openly admit, but they are an additional layer of bureaucracy that takes money off the top of anything you donate before they donate to other charities who have their own levels of bureaucracy to deal with.
This is simply not true. You send money to GiveWell and it goes to one of their three funds. You can CHOOSE to donate to their operations costs (i.e., analysts, data scientists, researchers who are fundamental parts of making this work and are very underpaid relative to what they’d be making in the private sector). You put a $100 toward one of their funds and the impact that comes out the other end is magnitudes greater than any national charity or local soup kitchen you’d be otherwise donating to, simply by virtue of the fact that that impact is being measured by its outputs rather than its inputs.
@@kfcthanksgiving They've previously said they don't compare all the charities and causes, that was the original promise but they soon figured out there are too many apples and oranges comparisons being made for that to be possible. What you're funding is their "community" who have redefined their task as spending their time debating this stuff philosophically. They've been rather big into AI lately btw, so maybe ask yourself if you think $30 million in donations to AI would be better spent giving soup to homeless people.
@@oldsoul3539 thanks for your response! I respectfully disagree - they publicly publish where their funds go. It's disingenuous to claim your donations are going to a bunch of people "debating this stuff philosophically". Here are GiveWell's recent investments in chronological order. No cherry picking: 6/1 - $1.49M for deworming in Burundi and Mauritania 5/1 - $597k for clubfoot treatment in Philippines and Chad 5/1 - $12.6M in mixed donations to Nigerians 4/1-5/1 - $12M for vitamin A supplementation in Chad & Madagascar 4/1 - $6M for promising healthcare R&D 4/1 - $5.8M for deworming 3/1 - $736k for tuberculosis 3/1 - $700k for agriculture 2/1 - $1.6M for malaria 1/1 - $1.8M for water chlorination Source: airtable.com/appGuFtOIb1eodoBu/shr1EzngorAlEzziP/tblG72bMUu36lrWsr/viwJScgH8B6uRwJ8C?blocks=hide I understand the concern about donating your money to people you don't know for impacts you don't witness firsthand. It feels impersonal. Please don't let frauds like SBF tarnish the principle of donating effectively, though. Consider this. Interventions by a high-impact charity have 50x the impact of a charity of median efficacy. Given that it roughlycosts $4,500 to by donating to an effective charity, that means . That is a HUGE moral consideration. Source: 80000hours.org/2023/02/how-much-do-solutions-differ-in-effectiveness/ But hey, any giving is better than none at all. So I don't mean to criticize or virtue signal, as many people genuinely prefer to save the life of 1 person in their home country instead of 50 people in a faraway country. Who am I to say once can't hold that value. Any giving is better than no giving!
Take 10 seconds and sign up for my free "5-Bullet Friday" newsletter: go.tim.blog/5-bullet-friday-yt/ Each Friday, you’ll get a short email from me with five things I've discovered that week, sending you off to your weekend with fun and useful things to ponder and try. 🙌
FTX & Effective Altruism in a nutshell:
Naively idealistic social assumption meets the realities of human greed and selfishness
even simpler: money laundering for rich and powerful
well put
Effective Altruism aka cover for we know better than you via the CIA operatives.
The Bigger FTX Scandal is “Effective Altruism”
by Sonia Elijah November 25, 2022
Brownstone Institute
More like Effective Authoritarianism
This feels like when Tony Stark tried to create a mech army to stop any threats to earth and the biggest threat to Earth was the mech army he created.
I love the shorter format as someone who doesn't have the time to watch whole videos.
Effective Altruism: "All this unchecked corporate capitalism at best and fraud at worst is going to be for the good of humanity bro, I promise after getting billions of dollars for myself under my name I will give it all back just trust me bro"
„And I will even go over dead bodies to get that wealth, bro, but at the end of the day the commonwealth will profit from my success“
MacAskill is not his real last name. William changed it. Why? Effective Altruism is a deep, dark hole.
Will, what made you decide to change your last name? Why did Lex delete his podcast with you?
yepppppppp
Lex obviously was told to delete it by his handlers.
"Effective Altruism" - 😄, Enough said.😄😅🤣
EA should start within oneself. Instead of giving away hard warned money you use your money directly to help people around you and your community.
Giving any money is certainly good. But if using your money to help people around you has 100x less impact than putting it to use abroad (due to exchange rates and broader ability to implement preventative solutions in less developed countries) that to me feels like more of a self-serving sort of giving, because you’re effectively saying that you would rather help one person in your local community than 100 people in a far away place just because you can physically participate in the local impact.
how would you distinguish altruism and benevolence?
How is it different from the Asset Based Community Development?
Altruism is concern for others.
Effective Altruism are a well intentioned idea that never worked. (0:35) "Effective Altruism is a "philosophy and a community" that's about TRYING TO FIGURE OUT how can we do as much good as possible", if you send them money, that's what you're funding. They gave everyone the impression that if you send them money they'll send that on to the most effective charities, but it's 'effective altruism' in name only. They neither have a functional system able to determine which ones are more effective (which was originally the whole point), which they'll openly admit, but they are an additional layer of bureaucracy that takes money off the top of anything you donate before they donate to other charities who have their own levels of bureaucracy to deal with.
ok
This is simply not true. You send money to GiveWell and it goes to one of their three funds. You can CHOOSE to donate to their operations costs (i.e., analysts, data scientists, researchers who are fundamental parts of making this work and are very underpaid relative to what they’d be making in the private sector). You put a $100 toward one of their funds and the impact that comes out the other end is magnitudes greater than any national charity or local soup kitchen you’d be otherwise donating to, simply by virtue of the fact that that impact is being measured by its outputs rather than its inputs.
@@kfcthanksgiving They've previously said they don't compare all the charities and causes, that was the original promise but they soon figured out there are too many apples and oranges comparisons being made for that to be possible. What you're funding is their "community" who have redefined their task as spending their time debating this stuff philosophically. They've been rather big into AI lately btw, so maybe ask yourself if you think $30 million in donations to AI would be better spent giving soup to homeless people.
@@oldsoul3539 thanks for your response! I respectfully disagree - they publicly publish where their funds go. It's disingenuous to claim your donations are going to a bunch of people "debating this stuff philosophically".
Here are GiveWell's recent investments in chronological order. No cherry picking:
6/1 - $1.49M for deworming in Burundi and Mauritania
5/1 - $597k for clubfoot treatment in Philippines and Chad
5/1 - $12.6M in mixed donations to Nigerians
4/1-5/1 - $12M for vitamin A supplementation in Chad & Madagascar
4/1 - $6M for promising healthcare R&D
4/1 - $5.8M for deworming
3/1 - $736k for tuberculosis
3/1 - $700k for agriculture
2/1 - $1.6M for malaria
1/1 - $1.8M for water chlorination
Source: airtable.com/appGuFtOIb1eodoBu/shr1EzngorAlEzziP/tblG72bMUu36lrWsr/viwJScgH8B6uRwJ8C?blocks=hide
I understand the concern about donating your money to people you don't know for impacts you don't witness firsthand. It feels impersonal. Please don't let frauds like SBF tarnish the principle of donating effectively, though.
Consider this. Interventions by a high-impact charity have 50x the impact of a charity of median efficacy. Given that it roughlycosts $4,500 to by donating to an effective charity, that means . That is a HUGE moral consideration.
Source: 80000hours.org/2023/02/how-much-do-solutions-differ-in-effectiveness/
But hey, any giving is better than none at all. So I don't mean to criticize or virtue signal, as many people genuinely prefer to save the life of 1 person in their home country instead of 50 people in a faraway country. Who am I to say once can't hold that value. Any giving is better than no giving!
not the same clean person from the thumbnail
you are the enemy, you're cultists, we will not bow
Thanks for the valuable inputs you shared in this video.
If you want to be "Effective", be an Objectivist, not an Altruist.
This space is ripe for capture
Intriguing. Thank you for sharing.
he looks dirty and unhealthy to me. he needs to focus a bit more on himself, i think
sketchy SBF cult like behaviours featuring ‘chinese harem’ style situations
💯
Just don't examine the system you are embedded in.
Amazon
The vaguest of answers lmao
He sound like a less nasal Jordan Peterson
Biased altruism.
This guy is simply a blatant liar.
100%
A true mancurian candidate