TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Against Effective Altruism

79 点作者 jeffreyrogers超过 2 年前

21 条评论

kvathupo超过 2 年前
I think many are missing the article&#x27;s thesis since it&#x27;s very, _very_ poorly written: &quot;I would argue that altruism is really meant to help the altruist, not the altruee.&quot;<p>The critical flaw of the essay is that the only evidence to back this point up is (1) &quot;look, a bunch of people donated to the NY opera!&quot; and (2) &quot;look what some effective altruist said; he must represent all altruists&quot;. All in all, the essay&#x27;s erratic logic is only rendered worse by its incomprehensible thesaurus mangling. Of course, intentional obfuscation is a hedge against criticism.<p>There&#x27;s poorly-written philosophy and well-written philosophy. This is neither.<p>Edit: My apologies for the caustic comment, but I felt it warranted, given the glib tone of the article
评论 #33154661 未加载
评论 #33154316 未加载
评论 #33156692 未加载
评论 #33154754 未加载
评论 #33154438 未加载
评论 #33160183 未加载
评论 #33161793 未加载
Apocryphon超过 2 年前
This article makes for a fun guessing-game to determine what the ideological background of the author is. Effective Altruism definitely seems like one of those heavily-blogged about fads that&#x27;s in vogue now with the tech-adjacent Rationalist set, so always curious to see who ends up opposing it.<p>&gt; Let me also say that atheism for the masses, in retrospect, was an enormous error. Organized religion as a social technology is invaluable and the modern atomized welfare state is a pathetic replacement. Atheism for the intellectual class is perfectly alright, but in the age of mass literacy there is really no barrier between them and the rest of society. Was atheism inevitable? Perhaps. But the New Atheists certainly didn&#x27;t help. Extrapolating this line of reasoning is left as an exercise to the reader.<p>As fun as it is to re-litigate the culture wars of yesterdecade, I don&#x27;t really think the post-Bush administration diminishment of public Christianity in the U.S. is creating the society that the New Atheists want(ed). Conspiracy theories and irrational memeplexes have completely run rampant in the public sphere in the U.S. and the western world. Superstition and magical thinking is all over the place, the objects of devotion just happen to center around modern politics and items from the news, rather than figures from ancient history. If anything, many people are less firm atheists and more like apatheists - people just sort of believe whatever their social circle and social media reinforces.
评论 #33154145 未加载
评论 #33154495 未加载
评论 #33155119 未加载
评论 #33155250 未加载
rthomas6超过 2 年前
I&#x27;m too dumb to understand what this article is talking about. I thought Effective Altruism was about maximizing goodness&#x2F;dollar when donating to charity. I assumed the measure of goodness was treated as an axiom, and up for critique. Number of lives saved per dollar seems to be a common metric, and one can argue why or why not that&#x27;s a good measure.<p>The article, as far as I can follow it, seems to be trying to discredit the idea that we can know what a good measure <i>is</i>, objectively. Okay, I guess I can see that. But who cares? Lives&#x2F;dollar <i>seems</i> like a good measure to me, and I like it. No more reasoning required. It&#x27;s my money and I decide what to do with it. And I can still think people who disagree with me are wrong.<p>Moral realism, metaethics, what is all this crap? Is there more to Effective Altruism that I am unaware of? What are they even trying to argue? On either side?
评论 #33155289 未加载
评论 #33154670 未加载
dang超过 2 年前
Related (by title at least):<p><i>Against ‘Effective Altruism’</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=28520719" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=28520719</a> - Sept 2021 (2 comments)<p>Also (thanks jinpan!):<p><i>Effective altruism as a tower of assumptions</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=32576224" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=32576224</a> - Aug 2022 (89 comments)<p>Edit: ok, also these:<p><i>The Reluctant Prophet of Effective Altruism</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=32386984" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=32386984</a> - Aug 2022 (185 comments)<p><i>‘Effective Altruism’ Is Neither</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=32224597" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=32224597</a> - July 2022 (22 comments)<p><i>Notes on Effective Altruism</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=31609325" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=31609325</a> - June 2022 (116 comments)<p><i>The elitist philanthropy of so-called effective altruism (2013)</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=31285371" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=31285371</a> - May 2022 (78 comments)<p><i>Effective altruism is not effective</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=26813763" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=26813763</a> - April 2021 (240 comments)
评论 #33160199 未加载
chatterhead超过 2 年前
The author of this piece doesn&#x27;t seem to understand the basics of systems thinking and the entropic effects of non-moral action on human collectivism.<p>EA won&#x27;t produce the proper outcomes. It&#x27;s the 80,000 hours people are likely more attracted to and the job listings that come with it. In most instances, positive outcomes for humans begin with negative perspectives because that&#x27;s how our psychology works.<p>Practical Altruism isn&#x27;t about what people deserve it&#x27;s about what they need. It&#x27;s not enough to teach a man to fish if he is unwilling to learn. You have to make them believe there will be a crop shortage so they need to learn.<p>True altruists will change their methods of effecting change for the situation, people, times, and needs. Because, if not we as humans will find a way to corrupt it.<p>Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. Which is why the invisible hand acts the way it acts.
评论 #33155434 未加载
colinmhayes超过 2 年前
I&#x27;m a moral anti-realist, but that doesn&#x27;t stop me from acting according to my morals. Much like existentialism doesn&#x27;t stop you from creating internal meaning to life moral anti realism doesn&#x27;t stop you from having moral opinions. Just because moral statements aren&#x27;t facts doesn&#x27;t mean I don&#x27;t get utility from acting on my chosen moral preferences. In fact, in a non-spiritual world there is no reason for realists and anti-realists to behave differently at all. If there aren&#x27;t consequences for behaving immorally the only reason to do so is because of how it makes you feel.
yashap超过 2 年前
This article is written in such a scattered&#x2F;hectic style that I’m honestly kind of worried for the author. Has the vibe of a manic episode and was almost impossible to follow.
评论 #33154654 未加载
dotsam超过 2 年前
&gt; So here&#x27;s my pitch to you: effective altruism is the altruism that raises your status the most<p>Effective altruism brings opportunities for status, for sure.<p>But that doesn’t mean trying to help people effectively is a bad thing.<p>Would you walk past a child drowning in a shallow pond, when you could easily intervene and save them?
评论 #33154073 未加载
评论 #33154538 未加载
jinpan超过 2 年前
One of my favorite essays on &quot;vs effective altruism&quot; - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;astralcodexten.substack.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;effective-altruism-as-a-tower-of" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;astralcodexten.substack.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;effective-altruism-as-...</a>
alex_young超过 2 年前
<p><pre><code> &gt; The moralogians appeal to nothing and expect you to accept it! Is the origin of moral facts natural, or supernatural? If natural, can we engineer our own? Why or why not? </code></pre> This is a strikingly bold way to put it I think.<p>Of course morals are natural in origin, and the shared basis for them is genetic at its core.<p>Does this imply there is some grand plan outside of natural selection for them? Of course not. Does it mean that these rules can be engineered to our liking? No more than you can engineer your own DNA. Maybe someday, but what&#x27;s the reason? Our billions of years of evolution has done a pretty good job of it IMO.<p>As for altruism, it&#x27;s painfully obvious that a) it does exist, and that b) it is a universal condition we all hold.<p>Where did altruism come from? Dawkins points to our ancestor&#x27;s lengthy existence in a small group of ~200 individuals. Survival meant not only optimizing for your own genetic survival, but for that of the collective.<p>Imagine for a moment the vast bulk of humanity living without altruism. I suspect things would fall to pieces very quickly. It&#x27;s a good thing our genetic code is littered with bits of rules like altruism.
avgcorrection超过 2 年前
&gt; Your &quot;adaptation execution&quot; has been memetically hijacked—where once you would get good things in return for your &quot;altruism&quot; (a stronger community, status, reciprocal altruism, coalition-building, or even &quot;niceness, community, and civilization&quot;), a runaway meme has now convinced you that it&#x27;s actually better to get nothing!5 You get all the costs of religion, and none of the prosocial benefits!<p>This is true. Or wrong, because getting nothing in return is very much in the spirit of Christian self-sacrifice.
astine超过 2 年前
<i>&quot;Now, you might be thinking &quot;But Alvaro, you idiot, we&#x27;re adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers! This is all perfectly alright, you see.&quot; Sure, we&#x27;re adaptation executors, but that doesn&#x27;t give you a blank check to execute whatever retarded adaptation was bred into your hairy great-....great-grandfather 500,000 years ago, and is now incompatible with the world you live in&quot;</i><p>Huh? Yes it does. You can&#x27;t go on a rant in favor of moral anti-realism and them criticize people for not having the right set of values. I mean, you can, but it makes you an idiot.
oneoff1122超过 2 年前
I am skeptical of effective altruism as anything useful or worthwhile but this article doesn&#x27;t address the real issues with the movement. There is a fundamental flaw with utilitarianism and it&#x27;s the fact that &quot;good&quot; can not be defined in terms of utility functions. It&#x27;s not possible to reduce morality to mathematics and dollar expenditure but that seems to be what effective altruists are proposing. Reduced to its core propositions it is essentially an economic religion with utility maximization as its only commandment.
评论 #33157146 未加载
pjdorrell超过 2 年前
Link to something I wrote once, which includes a discussion about absolute vs relative morality: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thinkinghard.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;BiologyOfMorality.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thinkinghard.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;BiologyOfMorality.html</a>.<p>(It would appear that &quot;moral realism&quot; is just another way of saying &quot;absolute morality&quot;, or &quot;moral absolutism&quot;.)
renewiltord超过 2 年前
Effective Altruism of the AI streak in a POSIWID sense appears to have the purpose of creating a shit ton of blog posts and no other discernable outcome.<p>The other variant of the GiveWell.org kind which is QALY focused appears to have worked on the QALY metric. Not everyone believes in QALY-based utilitarianism, so they&#x27;re predictably unhappy, but that&#x27;s it.
earthboundkid超过 2 年前
Mencius already refuted EA in Mencius 3A:5,<p>&quot;I have heard that this MacAskill is an Effective Altruist. Now Singer considers that in the regulation of funeral matters a spare simplicity should be the rule. MacAskill thinks with EA doctrines to change the customs of the kingdom - how does he regard them as if they were wrong, and not honor them? Notwithstanding his views, MacAskill buried his own parents in a sumptuous manner, and so he served them in the way which his doctrines discountenance.<p>…<p>&quot;Heaven gives birth to creatures in such a way that they have one root, and MacAskill makes them to have two roots. This is the cause of his error. In the most ancient times, there were some who did not inter their parents. When their parents died, they took them up and threw them into some water-channel. Afterwards, when passing by them, they saw foxes and wild-cats devouring them, and flies and gnats biting at them. The perspiration started out upon their foreheads, and they looked away, unable to bear the sight. It was not on account of other people that this perspiration flowed. The emotions of their hearts affected their faces and eyes, and instantly they went home, and came back with baskets and spades and covered the bodies. If the covering them thus was indeed right, you may see that the filial son and virtuous man, in interring in a handsome manner their parents, act according to a proper rule.&quot;<p>EA is based on our natural emotional responses: pain is bad, pleasure is good, etc. But it rationalizes until it has lost its own roots. Suddenly we&#x27;re debating about making lions extinct because they hunt prey and converting the universe to hedonium. You must preserve the root!
评论 #33154248 未加载
wizwit999超过 2 年前
Can&#x27;t follow this article, but there is a certain hubris to effective altruism folk that is rather off putting. As if to think fate is in our mortal hands. A charity of a single date with the right intention could outweigh millions of dollars with the wrong one.
benlivengood超过 2 年前
Are there many effective altruists who are not humanists? As I understand it humanism is founded on moral anti-realism and endorses scientific tools to, at least in principle, discover formal models of human morality so that it can be better optimized.
jschveibinz超过 2 年前
My response is titled: “Against Academic, Dead-end Philosophical Arguments”<p>Instead of arguing the definition of morality, just go out and help other people. The end.
评论 #33153620 未加载
评论 #33153584 未加载
评论 #33153841 未加载
djaouen超过 2 年前
This is fantastically stupid.
评论 #33153931 未加载
jzellis超过 2 年前
Man, this motherfucker must just be a big ol&#x27; hoot at parties.
评论 #33153946 未加载