I found this a bit odd and I'd love some more information. I'm attending a local EA discussion group since last week, and it seems pretty reasonable so far. (As far as I can tell, AI safety isn't a cult either, but apparently opinions differ strongly on at least one of these issues!)
So I'd love it if someone could give me some actual information instead of just flagging the thread this time? Thanks in advance
Like many other "rich people" movements of the past, it comes with a veneer of logic and altruism, but is ultimately self-serving and does nothing to resolve the wealth inequality problem (which is what the rich feel guilty over and need to salve their conscience somehow). In the old days, the poor would just rise up and kill them. We'd get around this problem by redistributing wealth (pot latch, jubilees, etc) but we don't have this anymore, thus the many philanthropic movements that target a specific tiny thing rather than the fundamental problem (which would threaten their wealth).
It gets flagged on HN because this whole thing already played out over the past 10 years, so we're over that.
1. People are just sick of hearing yet another thing about AI 2. Combine AI with EA and even more buzzwords and you’ll quickly multiply that effect. 3. It comes off as advertising, something that is usually highly frowned upon here. Even if the cause may or may not be noble. The crowd here wants to digest interesting content.
(To me, so far, it seems more right than wrong, but feedback from people who disagree is very valuable.)
My own value system here is "minimize suffering". EA emphasizes more measurable metrics like death and disability, which is a fair proxy. Though I've also heard criticisms of the fundamental idea, and more broadly utilitarianism in the first place.