I think it's worth noting that most people have no [productive] passion at all, and that the ones who do have passions often have quite malleable passions, or at least their passions are malleable at some early point in life.
The first group isn't going to find a passion no matter how hard they look, but they might find something relatively agreeable and good for the world. So yes, they should still look, but we should set realistic expectations for them.
The second group is pretty promising because if you intervene at the right time, they can direct their passion towards something good. For example, Ozy's passion for writing is quite general, but she writes about important things. There are nearby worlds where crime novels were going to be her thing. Likewise for the AI safety researcher, only slightly different paths might have had him set on things we'd clearly call capabilities. It matters that someone made the safety pitch to him before some critical moment.
So, is there no point in trying to improve yourself at all, if you are not one of the elect, or what?
I get quite frustrated by these discussions because they often seem to boil down to the idea that the world is made up of the worthwhile and the worthless, but thankfully everyone reading this is one of the worthwhile, probably. I think there's some truth to that worldview, but also, if you say "don't beat yourself up about objectively not mattering or not having virtue, also you can't acquire virtue, also virtue is the most important thing," anyone who's paying attention to you and isn't one of the happy few will be stuck without any option to contribute or make themselves worthy or feel like through your cause their life has mattered. Christianity has caused many people to do incredible things, and certainly dramatic and high-agency and passion-driven things, to an extent which is much less common outside of religion. I think this is because Christianity says that in fact every person does matter in the eyes of God and can do something ultimately meaningful. Without that, we're at a risk of becoming frozen.
the "the thing that is good for the world is good for you" thing also activate my most-convenient-world detector. it's like those Hasidic stories when somehow the insistence on observing kashrut or Shabat made the family find the gem that solved all their material problems. or the books when Doing The Right thing always lead to the best results, and there are never any trade-offs.
but is just false. people who optimize for egoism will not arrive to the same result as people who optimize for altruism. pretending it is is telling convenient lie - and one that will not convince intelligent people. so why?
Such a timely post! I am currently working on a career change, saw the 80,000 Hours book, and was like "ugh I bet this would be very helpful, but I don't want to work in AI, and reading this is likely to give me a panic attack about not working in AI, so I may need to skip it entirely despite it being useful." Do you think this is wrong? Are there particular chapters I could skip and avoid the worst of the guilting about how all your priorities are stupid because we'll all die in a decade? I'd love to try to apply their advice elsewhere, as I bet it's pretty thoughtful, but also trying to avoid a spiral-out int he process.
The AI-heavy chapters are 5 and 8; most of the other chapters are helpful for people who don't prioritize AI (although some of the specific advice may need tweaking).
> I am weirded out by the extent to which 80,000 Hours is a selfish book.
I expect this is deliberate. They want the book itself to do as much good as possible, and to that end they are trying for broad readership, and a rhetorical approach that appeals as much to the typical people who "want to do good" as to those who really really want to do good, seriously.
Your average person gives some money to charity―a first world charity, the kind of Charity to which, if you and your five best friends gave $500 every year for your whole careers, would collectively save one life worth of QALYs. Because they're in the market for warm fuzzies, and they haven't read a book explaining that, well, giving to these other causes won't give you as many warm fuzzies but is much more effective. Speaking of which, does the book explain that? I wonder if there should be a special warm-fuzziness think-tank charity that helps other charities produce warm fuzzies efficiently to improve fundraising...
I think it's worth noting that most people have no [productive] passion at all, and that the ones who do have passions often have quite malleable passions, or at least their passions are malleable at some early point in life.
The first group isn't going to find a passion no matter how hard they look, but they might find something relatively agreeable and good for the world. So yes, they should still look, but we should set realistic expectations for them.
The second group is pretty promising because if you intervene at the right time, they can direct their passion towards something good. For example, Ozy's passion for writing is quite general, but she writes about important things. There are nearby worlds where crime novels were going to be her thing. Likewise for the AI safety researcher, only slightly different paths might have had him set on things we'd clearly call capabilities. It matters that someone made the safety pitch to him before some critical moment.
So, is there no point in trying to improve yourself at all, if you are not one of the elect, or what?
I get quite frustrated by these discussions because they often seem to boil down to the idea that the world is made up of the worthwhile and the worthless, but thankfully everyone reading this is one of the worthwhile, probably. I think there's some truth to that worldview, but also, if you say "don't beat yourself up about objectively not mattering or not having virtue, also you can't acquire virtue, also virtue is the most important thing," anyone who's paying attention to you and isn't one of the happy few will be stuck without any option to contribute or make themselves worthy or feel like through your cause their life has mattered. Christianity has caused many people to do incredible things, and certainly dramatic and high-agency and passion-driven things, to an extent which is much less common outside of religion. I think this is because Christianity says that in fact every person does matter in the eyes of God and can do something ultimately meaningful. Without that, we're at a risk of becoming frozen.
(I am an agnostic; just an observation.)
Someone else saving forty lives a year has no effect on whether you ought to save one life a year.
the "the thing that is good for the world is good for you" thing also activate my most-convenient-world detector. it's like those Hasidic stories when somehow the insistence on observing kashrut or Shabat made the family find the gem that solved all their material problems. or the books when Doing The Right thing always lead to the best results, and there are never any trade-offs.
but is just false. people who optimize for egoism will not arrive to the same result as people who optimize for altruism. pretending it is is telling convenient lie - and one that will not convince intelligent people. so why?
Such a timely post! I am currently working on a career change, saw the 80,000 Hours book, and was like "ugh I bet this would be very helpful, but I don't want to work in AI, and reading this is likely to give me a panic attack about not working in AI, so I may need to skip it entirely despite it being useful." Do you think this is wrong? Are there particular chapters I could skip and avoid the worst of the guilting about how all your priorities are stupid because we'll all die in a decade? I'd love to try to apply their advice elsewhere, as I bet it's pretty thoughtful, but also trying to avoid a spiral-out int he process.
The AI-heavy chapters are 5 and 8; most of the other chapters are helpful for people who don't prioritize AI (although some of the specific advice may need tweaking).
> I am weirded out by the extent to which 80,000 Hours is a selfish book.
I expect this is deliberate. They want the book itself to do as much good as possible, and to that end they are trying for broad readership, and a rhetorical approach that appeals as much to the typical people who "want to do good" as to those who really really want to do good, seriously.
Your average person gives some money to charity―a first world charity, the kind of Charity to which, if you and your five best friends gave $500 every year for your whole careers, would collectively save one life worth of QALYs. Because they're in the market for warm fuzzies, and they haven't read a book explaining that, well, giving to these other causes won't give you as many warm fuzzies but is much more effective. Speaking of which, does the book explain that? I wonder if there should be a special warm-fuzziness think-tank charity that helps other charities produce warm fuzzies efficiently to improve fundraising...
Such a good post 🥹