I'll go on the record about this! I cofounded CEA USA with Kerry Vaughan while also being closely affiliated with (but not paid by) Leverage during my CEA time. I was never aware of Leverage deploying spies or a goal to "take over" CEA. Although I wasn't part of the leadership team, so maybe I just didn't know about that kind of stuff.

Kerry and I co-created the first EA Global and worked hard on a lot of other EA infrastructure (student groups, funding coordination, talent coordination amongst EA orgs, etc). Just speaking for myself, I was a capital-T True Believer in the EA movement, and in many ways still am despite my critique. We sometimes had strategic disagreements with CEA Oxford, but I would not call this a takeover plot.

But Oli is my friend (hi Oli), and I think he's picking up on a real "vibe."

The vibe is that many Leverage people, myself included, were into the aesthetic of spies, conspiracy, secret societies and all that stuff. Even though we didn't actually do much of all that, this aesthetic made me feel cool and important.

Here's another thing Oli might be referencing: While coordinating with CEA UK, I didn't hide that I was living in the Leverage building. But at the same time, I gathered that the Oxford group profoundly distrusted Leverage, so I did not talk to Oxford people about the extent of my closeness with Leverage. This was mostly out of fear that they would socially ostracize me and not be able to hear why I thought Leverage was an important org at the time. When I finally did talk about my relationship with Leverage circa 2016, I was told that this could have been grounds for firing. I didn't get fired, but I quit soon after.

(To give credit to the Oxford crowd, I think they were right to be skeptical about Leverage! Although I think they were coming at it from a place of "This is Bay Area weirdness that's bad for the EA movement's reputation" that I sensed they had toward figures like Eliezer too. I don't know, possibly that's a caricature.)

Beyond that, I'll say this: Even though I was more faithfully going about my job than I think "take over CEA" indicates, I did see myself as primarily following the Leverage plan at the time. To Tyler Alterman in his 20s, the Leverage plan just seemed like the most complete and interesting plan for making the world a better place. Making the EA movement big and influential was a part of that wider plan, which also included all sorts of other crazy stuff like recursive self-improvement and reverse engineering esoteric traditions.

Leave your email on the website!

I’m so happy to hear this!!

This dialogue with my optimizer-self, showing it evidence that it was undermining its own values by ignoring my other values, was very helpful for me too.

Do you subscribe to moral realism? If not, I’m curious what you think of Spencer‘s post: https://www.spencergreenberg.com/2022/08/tensions-between-moral-anti-realism-and-effective-altruism/

Just want to say that even though this is my endorsed position, it often goes out the window when I encounter tangible cases of extreme suffering. Here in Berlin, there was a woman I saw on the subway the other day who walked around dazedly with an open wound, seemingly not in touch with her surroundings, walking barefoot, and wearing an expression that looked like utter hopelessness. I don't speak German, so I wasn't able to interact with her well.

When I run into a case like this, what the "preliminary answer" I wrote above is hard to keep in mind, especially when I think of the millions who might be suffering in similar ways, yet invisibly.

Hi Braxton – I feel moved by what you wrote here and want to respond later in full.

For now, I just want to thank you for your phrase here: "How could I possibly waste my time on leisure activities once I’ve seen the dark world?" I think this might deserve its own essay. I think it poses a challenge even for anti-realists who aren't confused about their values, in the way Spencer Greenberg talks about here (worth a read).

Through the analogy I use in my essay, it might be nonsensical, in the conditions of a functional society, to say something like "It's more important to eat well than to sleep well," since you need both to be alive, and the society has minimized the tradeoffs between these two things. However, in situations of scarcity or emergency, that might change. If supply chains suddenly fail, I might find myself without food, and start sacrificing sleep to go forage.

A similar tradeoff might apply to value threatened by emergency or scarcity. For instance, let's say that a much-loved yet little-seen friend messages me: "Tyler! I missed my layover in Berlin, so now I'm here for the night!" Under this condition of scarcity, I might put off the art project I'd planned to work on this night. This is a low-stakes example, but seems to generalize to high stakes ones.

One might say: The emergency/scarcity conditions of the world bring our EA values under continuous threat. Does the same logic not apply?

I need to think about this more. My preliminary answer is kind of simple. Eventually I do need to sleep well to continue to forage for food, otherwise I'll undermine my foraging. Likewise, I can't raincheck my artmaking every night if my art project is a key source of fulfillment – doing so will undermine my quality of engagement when I spend time with friends. And similarly, allowing EA pursuits to crowd out the rest of the good life seems to undermine those EA pursuits long term (for roughly everyone that I know at least – my opinion). This seems to be true not only of EA pursuits, but any value that I allow to crowd out my other values. So the rational strategy seems to be to find ways for values to reduce conflict or even become symbiotic. An internal geopolitics of co-prosperity.

Agree so much with the antidote of silliness! I’m happy to see that EA Twitter is embracing it.

Excited to read the links you shared, they sound very relevant.

Thank you, Oliver. May your fire bum into the distance.

Fixed! Thank you.

Thank you, David! I also worry about this:

When we model to the rest of the world that “Effective” “Altruism” looks like brilliant (and especially young) people burn themselves out in despair, we are also creating a second order effect where we broadcast the image of Altruism as one tiled with suffering for the greater good. This is not quite inviting or promising for long term engagement on the world's most pressing problems.

Of course, if one believes that AGI is coming within a few years, then you might not care about these potential second order effects. I do not believe AGI is coming within a few years. Though if I did, I might actually believe that a culture of mutual dedication to one another's full set of ends is also instrumentally useful for the level of trust & coordination that could be required to deal with short timelines. Big "might."