Part of the effective altruism movement was founded on the idea that, within public health charities, there is an incredibly wide spread between the most effective and least effective. Effective altruists have recently been coming around to the idea that at least as important is the difference between the most and least effective cause areas. But while most EAs will agree that global public health interventions are generally more effective, or at least have higher potential, than supporting your local opera house, there's a fair bit of disagreement over what the most effective cause area is. Global poverty, animal welfare, existential risk, and movement building/meta-EA charities are the most popular, but there are also proponents of first world education, prioritization research, economics, life extension, and a whole host of other issues.
Recently there's been a lot of talk about whether one cause is so important that all other causes are rounding errors compared to it (though some disagreement over what that cause would be!). The argument, roughly goes: when computing expected impact of causes, mine is 10^30 times higher than any other, so nothing else matters. For instance, there are 10^58 future humans, so increasing the odds that they exist by even .0001% is still worth 10^44 times more important that anything that impacts current humans. Similar arguments have been made where the "very large number" is the number of animals, or the intractability of a cause, or moral discounting of some group (often future humans or animals).
This line of thinking is implicitly assuming that the impacts of causes add together rather than multiply, and I think that's probably not a very good model. But first, a foray into games.
Krug Versus Gromp
Imagine that you're playing some game against a friend. You each have a character--yours is named Krug, and your opponents' is named Gromp. The characters will eventually battle each other, once, to the death. They each do some amount of damage per second D, and have some amount of health H. They'll keep attacking each other continuously until one is dead.
If they fight, then Krug will take H_g / D_k seconds to kill Gromp, and Gromp will take H_k / D_g seconds to kill Krug, with the winner being the one who lasts longer. Multiply through by D_g*D_k, and you get that the winner is the one who has the higher D*H--what you're trying to maximize is the product of damage per second, and health. It doesn't matter what your opponent is doing--there's no rock, paper, scissors going on. You just want to maximize health * damage.
Now let's say that before this fight, you each get to buy items to equip to your character. You're buying for Krug. Krug starts out with no health and no damage. There are two items you can buy: swords that each give 5 damage per second, and shields that each give 20 health. They both cost $1 each, and you have $100 to spend. It turns out that the right way to spend your money is to spend $50 buying 50 swords, and $50 buying 50 shields, ending up with 250 damage per second, and 1,000 health. (You can play around with other options if you want, but I promise this is the best.)
The really cool thing is that your money allocation is totally independent of the cost of swords and shields, and how much damage/health they give. You should spend half your money on swords and half on shields, no matter what. If swords cost $10 and gave 1 attack, and shields cost $1 and gave 100 health, you should still spend $50 on each. One way to think about this is: the nth dollar I spend on swords will increase my damage per second by a factor of n/(n-1), and the nth dollar spent on shields will increase my health by n/(n-1). Since all I care about is damage * health, I can just pull out these multiplicative factors--the actual scale of the numbers don't matter at all.
This turns out to be a useful way to look at a wide variety of games. In Magic, 4/4's are better than 2/6's and 6/2's; in League of Legends, bruisers win duels; in Starcraft, Zerglings and Zealots are very strong combat units. In most games, the most powerful duelers are the units that have comparable amounts of investment in attack and defense.
Sometimes there are other stats that matter, too. For instance, there might be health, damage per attack, and attacks per second. In this case your total badassery is the product of all three, and you should spend 1/3 of your money on shields, 1/3 on swords, and 1/3 of caffeine (or whatever makes you attack quickly). In general most combat stats in games are multiplicative, and you're usually best off spending equal amounts of money on all of them, unless you're specifically incentivized not to (e.g. by getting more and more efficient ways to buy swords the more you spend on swords). In general, when factors each increase linearly in money spent and multiply with each other, you're best off spending equal amounts of money on each of the factors. Let's call this the Principle of Distributed Power (PDP).
So, what does this have to do with effective altruism?
I think that, in practice, the impacts of lots of causes multiply, instead of adding. For instance, I think that a plausible way to view the future is that expected utility is X * G, where X is the probability that we avoid existential risk and make it to the far future, and G is the goodness of the world we create, assuming we succeed in avoiding x-risk. By the Principle of Distributed Power, you'd want to invest equal amounts of resources on X and G. But within X there are actually lots of different forms of existential risk--AI, Global Warming, bioterrorism, etc. And within G, there are lots and lots of factors, each of which might multiply with each other--technological advancement, the care with which we treat animals, ability to effectively govern ourselves, etc. And the PDP implies that our prior should be to invest comparable resources in each of those terms.
The real world is a lot messier than the battle between Krug and Gromp. One of the big differences is that the impact of work on most of these causes isn't linear. If you invest $1M in global warming x-risk maybe you reduce the odds that it destroys us by .01%, but if you invest $10^30 clearly you don't decrease the odds by 10^28%--the odds can't go below 0. Many of these causes have some best achievable outcome, and so at some point you have to have decreasing marginal utility of resources.
Another difference is that we're not starting from zero on all causes. The world has already invested billions of dollars in fighting global warming, and so that should be subtracted from the amount that's efficient to further spend on it. (If you start off with $100 already invested in swords, then your next $100 should be invested in shields before you go back to splitting up your investments.)
In practice, when considering causes that multiply together, the question of how to divide up resources depends on how much has already been invested, where on the probability distribution for that cause you currently think you are, and lots of other practicalities. In other words, it depends on how much you think it costs to increase your probability of a desired outcome by 1%.
But as long as there are other factors that multiply with it, a factor's importance transfers to them as well. Which, in some cases, is a fact long ago discovered: the whole reason that x-risk is important is because of how immensely important the future is, which is equally an argument for improving the future and for getting there.
None of this proves anything. But it's significantly changed my prior, and I now think it's likely that the EA movement should heavily invest in multiple causes, not just one.
I've spend a lot of time in my life trying to decide what the single most important cause is, and pissing other people off by being an asshole when I think I've found it. I also like playing AD carries. But my winrate with them isn't very high. Maybe it's time to build bruiser.
Given how large current world investments are in various projects, and given that those investments probably aren't already perfectly optimized for the product that you want to optimize, I would expect that you (and the whole EA movement) could spend all its resources pushing on just one variable trying to make it more aligned with the others and still not get to a point where that variable hits diminishing marginal returns relative to pushing on other variables. For example, suppose the world's current distribution between D and H is 48% vs. 52%. Even if EAs generate millions of dollars of donations, they probably wouldn't change the distribution more than making it like 48.1% vs. 51.9% or something.
As far as "the future is that expected utility is X * G", one has to remember that G could be negative, which changes the calculation a bit. Maybe you mean that G is the expected goodness of the future.
Yup totally agree that G could be negative; by X and G I do mean the expected value of X and G.ReplyDelete
I think that that's a good argument for not spending resources in most causes. But when selecting for causes EAs tend to care about it's a lot less clear--(copy-pasting what I said on the FB thread)--EA does make up a significant about of spending in many of the causes EAs tend to care about (e.g. xrisk, farmed animal welfare, EA movement building, prioritization research, wild animal welfare, etc.), and even where it doesn't it probably has a reasonably large impact on what the future of the field will look like (e.g. givewell with global poverty donations).
Very thought-provoking post.Delete
My thoughts, after reading all the above comments:
- causes add rather than multiply in the general case e.g. economic development + better tech + immigration reform + justice reform.
- impact of investment in a cause is generally not linear. Rather, you'd want it to have diminishing returns, perhaps described by a log. I'm not so expert at mathematical modelling, but in the more general case, if you want to use multiplicative causes, you have I = f(y)*g(x) where y=1-x, you want to maximise marginal impact per dollar, ∂I/∂x, so I think you you want to maximise ∂f/∂y*g + ∂g/∂y*f. This will not generally bear the solution x = y.
- these models might apply to how the world's resources should be distributed. But 99.9% of funding of poverty alleviation is going to occur anyway. If we can only move x (the fraction of funds distributed to global economic development, rather than existential risk reduction) from .999 (vs 0.001) to .998 (vs 0.002), then this would be good on the multiplicative cause model.
- Yeah I think that a reasonable way to think of causes is probably that there are categories within which things add (e.g. economic development), and then the categories multiply with each other.Delete
- I also agree that causes probably have decreasing marginal utility. So you probably want to find out which cause, right now, has the greatest % increase per $ spent. I'll maybe write up something mathier on it later, but I think it doesn't change the general notion that you want to split up resources
- yeah I think it's a reasonable argument against poverty reduction unless you think it's much much much more effective than most
I'm not swayed much. I don't see any plausible multiplicative effects. From the perspective of reducing animal suffering being the most important thing (assuming you don't think the future is relevant or that x-risk isn't actually much of a worry), x-risk is irrelevant. And from the perspective of x-risk being the most important thing, what the future looks like is dominated by what future agents do rather than the suffering we eliminate now. There doesn't seem like there's a relevant multiplication going on at all.ReplyDelete
I do think its valuable to bring up cause prioritization arguments like these, and I appreciate that you're doing so, but I don't think this has the macro-applicability you mention here.
Hi jsalvati :) Animal advocacy in the present helps contribute to the values that future (post-)humans hold. Making it more likely future agents care about animals makes it more likely the future will be good. So some sort of multiplication (maybe with a small coefficient) seems appropriate.Delete
I don't think that this is going to be a practical concern for the effective altruism movement for some time. As long as you are investing small amounts of money (and on a global scale the amount of money spent by the EA movement is still small), your most effective investment is in the one with the highest marginal returns. While global returns to different investments are not always additive, marginal returns are. Thus, unless the amount of money that you are investing is large relative to the ratio of first and second derivatives (i.e. the point at which you reach substantial diminishing/increasing returns), you should basically just pick the single cause with the highest marginal returns and invest in only that. I mean if EA was the only people in the world thinking about global health or about animal welfare or about x-risk, we might need to spread our money out more because the first marginal dollar probably has pretty substantial impact (I mean if literally nobody else has ever thought about x-risks it might be super important for you to spend five minutes considering whether it's plausible that we would be wiped out tomorrow). However, none of these seem to be the case, and x-risk is the only cause I can think of where EA dollars might even plausibly account for a large fraction of the worldwide work in the area.ReplyDelete
Today, video game systems are becoming more and more sophisticated and are now integrated with the latest technology in graphics and sounds. If you played with the latest video game systems before, you know how much fun it is to play with these machines. Murahqq PkvReplyDelete
A Gaming Computer, also known as gaming PC, is a personal computer that is capable of playing computationally and graphically demanding video games. They are very similar to conventional computers with the exception that these machines are fitted with performance-oriented video card and other specifications. 카지노사이트ReplyDelete
Battlefield 3 was released at the same time at Modern Warfare 3. With two huge First person shooter games being released just a few days apart, the competition for #1 console FPS game began. Did Battlefield 3 come out on top? Is Battlefield 3 the better shooter? Check out this review to find out! سایت امیر تتلوReplyDelete
We all are fond of playing games online and offline. Games can be defined as an activity that is merely done for enjoyment or sometimes for educational purpose. However, many of the games such as soccer, rugby, baseball, chess, etc are largely played to have competition between the players in order to decide the winner. ترفند بازی انفجارReplyDelete
We all are fond of playing games online and offline. Games can be defined as an activity that is merely done for enjoyment or sometimes for educational purpose. However, many of the games such as soccer, rugby, baseball, chess, etc are largely played to have competition between the players in order to decide the winner. سایت تتل بتReplyDelete
Rugby group authorities gauge around 400-500 players, staff and group authorities from NRL sides, addressing a few unique nations, would be associated with the World Cup. https://jini55.comReplyDelete
November 7, 2021 at 11:17 PM
This is my site I need help. 카지노사이트ReplyDelete
This is similar to my site. That's a good post. It took me a while to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It has been very helpful to me and I assure all commenters here!
Well-written articles, the internet would be a much better place if all bloggers offered the same content as you. Here is my website. Please leave a comment on my site as well.
먹튀검증커뮤니티 Ham Jung-woo said, "I carried it out without practicing separately, but putts went in every crisis. "I bent down more because the putter was short, and it wasn't my club, so I was more nervous and hit it, so I thinkReplyDelete
먹튀검증 I'm going to recommend golf whether I play or not when I have children. The couple's treasure is the famous championship putter. Ham Jung-woo, who reached the top of a competition in October last yearReplyDelete
안전놀이터 Ham Jung-woo, who had no plan, met Kang Ye-rin and learned the value of her planned life. The couple agreed, "I think we're becoming more and more alike." I don't have a second-generation plan yet, butReplyDelete
안전놀이터 Kang Ye-rin said, "It was a used putter that I didn't use for a long time, but Jungwoo said it felt good, so I asked him to use it. I was also having a competition that week, and on the last day, I was worried aboutReplyDelete
안전놀이터순위 Kang Ye-rin, who finished the game first, ran from Pocheon, Gyeonggi Province to Yeoju and gave her a surprise celebration. "I was moved by the phone call, I'm in front of the clubhouse," said Tamm Jung-wooReplyDelete
먹튀검증커뮤니티 "I really want to do that. On the day Yerin wins, I'll take a step forward." How about a picture of a couple taking turns being caddies to each other? Five years ago, in the second round of a tournament, Ham JungReplyDelete
먹튀검증커뮤니티 On that day, Kang Ye-rin shot 77 and missed the cut. On the contrary, when Kang Ye-rin said, "If I become a caddy, I will win 40 games," Trap Jung-woo jokingly accepted it, saying, "If you become a caddy, you willReplyDelete
I recommend a Toto site where Toto users can freely make single-folder bets and multi-folder bets. If you use Sports Toto betting at a safety playground, you can bet conveniently on a flight ticket without worrying about eating and running or delaying currency exchange. Good betting sites in Korea are listed in the major playground rankings. 토토사이트 메이저사이트 안전놀이터ReplyDelete
I recommend the Toto page, where Toto users can bet freely with one folder and bet with multiple folders. If you use Sports Toto to bet on a safe bet, you can easily bet on a plane without having to worry about food and running or slowing down the money exchange. The best betting sites in Korea are listed in the leaderboard. 토토사이트 안전 토토사이트 추천 안전놀이터ReplyDelete
I recommend the Toto site where Toto users can bet one folder and multiple folders. If you are using Sports Toto betting on a saved stadium, you can bet on plane tickets easily without having to worry about taking a run or delaying the exchange. The best betting sites in Korea are listed in the sports betting category. 토토사이트 메이저 사설토토 안전놀이터ReplyDelete
The cost-effective Toto site provides reasonable dividends and useful events to Korean Sports Toto users. Major safety playgrounds, private Toto, and Toto sites recommended by the food and run verification community are considered the most useful websites among online betting sites. 토토사이트 안전 스포츠토토 사이트 안전놀이터ReplyDelete
The cost-effective side of Toto brings users of Korean sports Toto reasonable dividends and beneficial events. Important Security Games, Private Sites This and Toto recommended by the community for food and run verification are considered to be the most useful online betting sites. 토토사이트 토토사이트 모음 안전놀이터ReplyDelete
The value-for-money Toto site offers reasonable dividends and beneficial events for Korean Toto users. The Toto website, which has been trusted by major theme parks, private Toto, and restaurant and shopping communities, is considered one of the most popular online gambling sites. 토토사이트 토토 메이저사이트 안전놀이터ReplyDelete
Sports Toto is divided into Private Toto and Batman Toto, Korean online betting sites. Major Toto sites are defined as safety playgrounds and serve the mobile betting environment for sports betting users. It is the most useful website for sports analysts who use Toto and Protobetting. 토토사이트 토토사이트 추천 안전놀이터ReplyDelete
Toto Games is divided into online gaming sites Private Toto and Batman Toto. The Toto Center is defined as a haven of peace and provides a mobile casino for gambling users. The most profitable place for sports commentators using Toto and Protobetting. 토토사이트 안전놀이터 순위 안전놀이터ReplyDelete
New textbooks for Hong Kong schools will state the territory was never a British colony, local media report. 카지노커뮤니티ReplyDelete
Instead, the books declare the British "only exercised colonial rule" in Hong Kong - a distinction drawn to highlight China's claims of unbroken sovereignty. 카지노사이트ReplyDelete
China has always asserted it never gave up sovereignty and its surrender of Hong Kong to the British was due to unfair Opium War treaties in the 1800s. -> 바카라사이트ReplyDelete
There are some topics out there that I think are just prime for blogs to take over, but they’ve been vacant for so long because nobody with the right skills has stepped up to the plate.ReplyDelete
Hobbies & skills that require (imagine that) actual skills have a way higher barrier to entry.
The thing is, if you do get into them (and have something to offer), you’ll face limited competition, and if you know your marketing, you will flourish.
He’s taking his knowledge in a growing topic, displayed his expertise, and uses good blogging practices.ReplyDelete
If your a new blogger and thinking to yourself, “I’ll start a soccer blog!”, I hate to be the dream killer, but it doesn’t work that way.
Focus is a fundamental key to blog success, being the king of your sub-niche and moving on to broader topics (or even whole new sites) down the line.
Ok. But in that case, all the charities you should be investing in are the ones that influence the large future. Does giving to an animal welfare charity today actually change the way animals are treated in a billion years time? The technological advancement after a billion years of ASI is crazy high, and doesn't seem greatly effected by anything we do today. Everything we could invent will be invented within 5 minutes of ASI. Friendly superintelligence seems like a total win condition, if we get it, it doesn't matter how much we were screwing up everything else, we get almost max reward anyway.ReplyDelete
Multiplicative in probabilities is not the same as multiplicitive in donations. In the swords and shields example, if you spent nothing on shields, you get 0 reward.
In reality, if you spend nothing on asteroid strike prevention, well the chance of an asteroid hitting is pretty low anyway. Even given a $1 intervention that halves the risk of demonic invasion, the chance of demonic invasion is so tiny we still shouldn't take it. Utility is a complicated function of resource use. At least the (Allocate resorces where they do most good on the margin) rule works.
Grewt article! Thhis iss thee kknd oof ino thaat aare suppised tto bee sharewd acros tthe internet.메이저사이트ReplyDelete
This was a really great contest and hopefully I can attend the next one. 먹튀검증ReplyDelete
You have some real insight into the things you write about. Be sure to keep writing.메이저사이트ReplyDelete
squeeze masturbation cup has multiple combinations of 10-frequency vibration and 5-pattern suction.ReplyDelete
You are so smart!ReplyDelete
What a great vision you have!ReplyDelete