4 ms·

I'm glad to hear someone else calling out Bregman. His work is very flimsy, and I have been a hater for close to 10 years [1]. I think Bregman skirts close to

I'm glad to hear someone else calling out Bregman. His work is very flimsy, and I have been a hater for close to 10 years [1]. I think Bregman skirts close to the "Effective Altruism" movement and his work has similar problems of choosing flashy, exciting, elitist projects over boring, uncomfortable, policy changes. His enamourment with "AI!!!" (exclamations mandatory) is par for the course. Basically a fantasy that if AI leads to enough layoffs, the rest of society will accept a transition to UBI (against their own interests) Bregman has been going on about UBI for decades and I've never seen him do the actual maths. In Utopia for Realists he argued the budget deficit can be completely made up by the cost savings of having fewer benefit systems. It's fantasy [1] https://www.breck-mckye.com/review-utopia-for-realists-rutger-bregman/ https://www.breck-mckye.com/review-utopia-for-realists-rutge...

unmole 3mo ago
> I think Bregman skirts close to the "Effective Altruism" movement and his work has similar problems of choosing flashy, exciting, elitist projects over boring, uncomfortable, policy changes. I'm sorry, but what? The most prominent EA projects focus on cost effective interventions that save and improve lives. Give Well's current top recommendations are medicines and nets to prevent malaria, vitamin A supplements and promoting regular childhood vaccinations. None of them are flashy or elitist.
- estearum 3mo ago
  You don't need to apologize! People like GP are just liars. It's incredible the consistency with which you can go from [negative opinion about EA] to [revealed extreme ignorance of EA]. Just let the person talk for another sentence or two and they'll out themselves as having literally zero familiarity whatsoever with EA. "EA sucks because it pursues flashy, exciting projects" is an insane position that, truly, only a liar could write.
  - adammarples 3mo ago
    The centre for effective altruism puts most of its efforts into mitigating the risks of super intelligent AI doesn't it?
    - unmole 3mo ago
      No.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      Step 1. Go to https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ Step 2. Click "Find a charity to donate to", which links you here: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/best-charities-to-donate-to-2026 https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/best-charities-to-donate-to-... Step 3. Read the list of cause areas Here's a preview since apparently there are hordes of overconfident people too "busy" to follow simple steps like these: 3 cause areas: Global health & Wellbeing, Animal Welfare, Global Catastrophic Risk Global Health: * Malaria * Malaria * Vitamin A for children * Vaccines for children * GiveWell, an aggregator for charities similar to the prior 4 Animal Welfare: * Fund aggregators to increase animal wellbeing by the dozens, hundreds, or thousands, or millions of living creatures' suffering Global Catastrophic Risk: * Research on AI risk, bioengineering risk, and nuclear risk – all of which AI is not only listed last, but doesn't even have its own dedicated page. It's lumped in with a set of other things that many people believe are long-term risks rather than immediate term massive problems, like childhood vaccinations, malaria, or industrial animal abuse. Hope that helps!

unmole 3mo ago

> I think Bregman skirts close to the "Effective Altruism" movement and his work has similar problems of choosing flashy, exciting, elitist projects over boring, uncomfortable, policy changes. I'm sorry, but what? The most prominent EA projects focus on cost effective interventions that save and improve lives. Give Well's current top recommendations are medicines and nets to prevent malaria, vitamin A supplements and promoting regular childhood vaccinations. None of them are flashy or elitist.

estearum 3mo ago
You don't need to apologize! People like GP are just liars. It's incredible the consistency with which you can go from [negative opinion about EA] to [revealed extreme ignorance of EA]. Just let the person talk for another sentence or two and they'll out themselves as having literally zero familiarity whatsoever with EA. "EA sucks because it pursues flashy, exciting projects" is an insane position that, truly, only a liar could write.
- adammarples 3mo ago
  The centre for effective altruism puts most of its efforts into mitigating the risks of super intelligent AI doesn't it?
  - unmole 3mo ago
    No.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    Step 1. Go to https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ Step 2. Click "Find a charity to donate to", which links you here: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/best-charities-to-donate-to-2026 https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/best-charities-to-donate-to-... Step 3. Read the list of cause areas Here's a preview since apparently there are hordes of overconfident people too "busy" to follow simple steps like these: 3 cause areas: Global health & Wellbeing, Animal Welfare, Global Catastrophic Risk Global Health: * Malaria * Malaria * Vitamin A for children * Vaccines for children * GiveWell, an aggregator for charities similar to the prior 4 Animal Welfare: * Fund aggregators to increase animal wellbeing by the dozens, hundreds, or thousands, or millions of living creatures' suffering Global Catastrophic Risk: * Research on AI risk, bioengineering risk, and nuclear risk – all of which AI is not only listed last, but doesn't even have its own dedicated page. It's lumped in with a set of other things that many people believe are long-term risks rather than immediate term massive problems, like childhood vaccinations, malaria, or industrial animal abuse. Hope that helps!