The rationalist stuff really reads like the guy has a preexisting bone to pick. I get that LessWrong has gotten pretty navel-gazing, and that the EA community took a real beating when all this FTX stuff came to the surface.
But the supposed critique of Scott Alexander is nonsensical. The article tees up this supposed big blow against him by framing the "amphetamines" section as though his single article about Adderall somehow is the root cause of SBF's apparent drug abuse. That's pretty tenuous at best, and reads like the kind of thing you'd only write if you're desperate to find a way to dunk on "rationalists".
I really don't understand the hate boner everyone has for effective altruism - the whole core of the idea was just to choose charities that get the most value for the money donated. Maybe it's the cold (and admittedly quite handwavy ) utilitarian calculus of the whole thing that turns people off. But just because SBF was a fraud doesn't mean the whole EA movement is bullshit, and when you look at how money is spent by some "popular" charities like the Komen Foundation, EA looks pretty logical to me.
But the supposed critique of Scott Alexander is nonsensical. The article tees up this supposed big blow against him by framing the "amphetamines" section as though his single article about Adderall somehow is the root cause of SBF's apparent drug abuse. That's pretty tenuous at best, and reads like the kind of thing you'd only write if you're desperate to find a way to dunk on "rationalists".
I really don't understand the hate boner everyone has for effective altruism - the whole core of the idea was just to choose charities that get the most value for the money donated. Maybe it's the cold (and admittedly quite handwavy ) utilitarian calculus of the whole thing that turns people off. But just because SBF was a fraud doesn't mean the whole EA movement is bullshit, and when you look at how money is spent by some "popular" charities like the Komen Foundation, EA looks pretty logical to me.