Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Matt Reardon's avatar

Staying in contact with the incredibly-serious, but not literally-most-important problems in the world seems healthy for personal calibration and credibly conveying the values that drive your work to people who might otherwise not understand.

Following expected value, but being less than a complete slave to it seems like the right long run strategy from most perspectives. I think this is your former employer's implied policy for good reason!

June Jimenez's avatar

> In fact, the very next day after we made this donation, I found myself in a conversation full of longtermist EAs worrying that all the newly minted billionaires would quickly spend down their money on global health and animal well-being interventions instead of saving it for more removed but ultimately higher-leverage opportunities that crop up during (or even after) the Singularity.

I'm sorry, and I appreciate the post so apologies for being unkind, but I just think this loses the plot a little bit on some of their parts.

I think you should follow the math *extremely* far, but I also think of the idea of reflective salience; that the issues you spend a lot of time discussing are the issues you end up giving the most attention, and it just seems like "Oh no, these people making extremely net-positive contributions could have made even more extremely net-positive contributions" is a deep misallocation of your mental energy when there exist so many people close to zero or at net-negative you could be working to try to convince to move somewhat.

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?