I think you're strawmanning. "Using reason and evidence to figure out how to do the most good" (what I said) != "doing good stuff better" (what you said). And yes, a single phrase cannot contain all the content around what we consider "good", but you can read the websites, (cont)
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
TBC you can meet my description (cause-neutral in principle) while still, in practice, not prioritizing animals or the far-future. If, e.g., you think animals are likely not sentient, or you think our ability to affect the far future is minimal, etc.
...but the language from orgs does tend to be quite a lot softer. Caring about animals/future lives is not presented as an EA pre-req.You can extend my argument further — that most of the leadership *do* believe that some non-human species are sentient & *do* believe we can affect the far future, but do not press on those claims in order to keep the "big tent" intact.
-
-
idk, EA leadership have been talking a *lot* about why they believe we can affect the far future. So the idea that they're deliberately not pressing on those claims in order to preserve the "big tent" doesn't ring true to me.
-
I do think the phenomenon you're pointing at was true for a period from, like, 2015-2016, or something, that there was a mismatch between what core EA folks believed and what they emphasized publicly. But they've been trying to close that gap in the last couple years.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.