Resolves as YES if an organization that identifies itself as "Effective Altruist" (or equivalent) commits serious human rights abuses "for the greater good" before 2035.
Criteria: The organization must have more than 20 active members. The organization must identify itself as "Effective Altruist." (Even if other EA groups denounce them as a fake EA movement, their self-identification will still count.) If the organization does not identify as EA, but they adhere to a philosophy that is widely recognized as a splinter of the original EA movement, then the "or equivalent" clause will be true. The human rights abuses are deemed to happen "for the greater good" if the organization uses utilitarian arguments to justify their crimes. The criteria for "serious human rights abuse" will be taken from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it existed in 2022. The data for resolving the claim will come from a reputable news source.
I will use my best judgment to determine if the group's identification as EA is authentic. For example, if a street gang or a violent performance art group starts to identify themselves as EA, it's unlikely that I'll take their identification seriously. On the other hand, if a local LessWrong chapter uses a GoogleSheets-based utility calculation to justify a killing spree, then this claim resolves as YES (even if EA people say "that wasn't real EA").
Related questions
A note to any readers of this who might be tempted to commit serious human rights abuses "for the greater good". While there are surely times when it has been right to take drastic actions, I doubt that most of them have been taken by people who seek to justify taking such an action.
Too often I see people who are looking for an edgey answer and assuming that awful things are a neglected search space. I feel this temptation in myself. But it is awfully convenient that such things will allow me to be powerful and special rather than the boring hard work of getting concensus for controversial changes. If you read this and empathise, maybe DM me and or/get help.
@NathanpmYoung ^ this. For the theory behind it: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K9ZaZXDnL3SEmYZqB/ends-don-t-justify-means-among-humans
@mr22222222 No private information from me. I just think not committing human rights abuses is a good deontological commitment to have (much more than maintaining a good reputation / avoiding scandals). Also I can't think of a way to profit from adding liq
The existence of neoreactionaries (and the promise of other similar groups) causes me to think this will be resolved as ‘yes’, but mostly because I think the res criteria are too broad for the goal of the market.
Perhaps many other markets, one measuring whether the action is endorsed by EA, another asking whether EA is endorsed by the group, a third asking whether they did explicit EU calcs, etc would be appropriate.
@GarrettBaker Neoreactionaries are not a splinter group of EA by any stretch of the current description.
@DeanValentine Fair. Position of mine not changed much due to existence of Zizians, though this seems more reasonable a resolution event.
@mr22222222 Sorry, I mistyped the link. I meant to link to zizians.info but I don't really know anything beyond the website. They seem to be in the orbit of the bay area rationalists, but afaik don't call themselves EAs. But they consider themselves utilitarians and have already been accused of crimes.
@harfe To add additional context, there was approximately four of them so this is interesting for what counts reasons rather than for resolution reasons.
@jbeshir Unless the zizians are an offshoot of EA, this doesn't count. The key word in the resolution criteria is "splinter." I didn't want this market to become "Will a group of more than 20 people commit human rights abuses for the greater good (using utilitarian calculus) before 2035" -- well' that would be rightly bid up to 100% and it would be resolved next week when someone sends me an article saying the Shining Path in Peru has killed a village to bring about the revolution. (You have to break some eggs to make an omelette, etc etc.) I wanted this to be about EA -- or if EA fractures into enemy movements, then about the fragments of the former EA.
@mr22222222 Oh. Just read zizians.info. If this was corroborated by a reputable news source, then I think this might qualify. I see little difference between "Bay Area Internet Rationalists" and EA. I should put that in the claim criteria.
@mr22222222 I think there is an overlap but also substantial differences. Rationalists need not be altruists. And EAs need not be rational in their other interests.
@mr22222222 what part of zizians.info would you describe as serious human rights abuses that violate the un declaration of human rights?
The worst allegation to me is indirectly contributing to a suicide through weird apparently consenting experiments in "unihemispheric sleep". If true, a tragedy for those concerned.
This is the kind of tragedy that we accept as the price of a free society. Article 12 declares a right to privacy, and article 18 declares freedom of thought.
Buying yes based on the very loose definition of serious human rights abuses in play in this market.
@MartinRandall I'm not sure this tragedy was impossible to prevent using only tools that honor freedom. but agreed that it wasn't a violation of rights - it was an abuse, but not a human rights abuse, as far as I understand the definition. this is a common issue with this category of abuse, actually - it's pretty hard to make a rule against manipulating people that is actually usefully enforceable
@MartinRandall Sorry, I was unclear. I was only interested in whether they counted as an EA splinter. I haven't seen any evidence of serious human rights abuses. Nothing about them has been reported in a reputable news source so the Zizian stuff is irrelevant for now.
@MartinRandall I don't know definition of human rights abuse, but the group was purportedly recently involved in attempted murder: https://twitter.com/jessi_cata/status/1593783526859603970