Ah yes, the gateway drug straw man. Poster didn't say it causes that consequence, just that it normalises it. Just like video games normalise violence, gay porn normalises being gay etc. Doesn't mean it should be banned, but it does shift the winds about what is acceptable. And that is a worthy discussion when it comes to images of child exploitation.

Normalizes vs causes is a vacuous distinction here, and both of your examples deserve some proof that there's any difference

Why is this flagged now? It's been 15 minutes. Is this a Hasbara thing again?

Yes, shalom my friend.

So donate to unsexy causes instead. What's that got to do with EA?

It just doesn't. It's about how to make the most from altruism. It's got nothing to do with predictions. If you make enough to pay some people to work in a soup kitchen, don't quit your job to make soup. It's nothing more.

What reasons do you have to assume EA = SBF?

If you can afford to hire 10 people to do it then they'll probably be able to do more good than just you. That sounds like a more efficient allocation of effort and resources.

The origins of EA were never in question, nothing new there. It was Peter Singer's work on maximising value for charitable outcomes. Comment section seems to be about something else altogether.

Maybe a book clarifying what it really is is a good idea.

But if it's a net positive, the point is made.

I think it's a case of judging a band by its fans. Enough dodgy billionaires have jumped on to create a poor image. Singer never said donating buys you a license to be evil.

I only know about SBF but SBF was a scammer. Are we surprised that scammers try to use anything that could give them a positive image in order to, you know, scam people ?

Also I don't see Elon Musk giving out his money to save non-white people's lives anytime soon

So who are we talking about here ?