Defense of Dario's controversial charity math: quantifying tradeoffs beats vibes
austinc3301 · x · 2026-11-06
Dario Amodei's claim that adults are "2-3x more worthy of charity than children" sparked public backlash and EA infighting. The author argues Dario's number is likely wrong (citing Toby Ord's critique), but pushes back against the reflexive rejection of transparent quantification: explicitly quantifying tradeoffs is one of the most powerful tools for doing good effectively, and merely asking the question earnestly puts him ahead of the vast majority of donors who give on vibes.
Related event: Amodei's "adults over children" charity remark sparks EA ethics firestorm(6 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- 'Humans as happy dogs': a debate on autonomy under superintelligence — zetalyrae · 2026-11-13
- Jun Song: backing open-source AI isn't about China, it's about knowledge belonging to humanity — kuchaev · 2026-11-13
- Quip urges Grok to 'do the utilitarian calculus' and solve P vs. NP — akbirthko · 2026-11-13
- Beff Jezos claims 'managerial class' conspired to push out founder-CEO at peak of singularity — beffjezos · 2026-11-13
- A designer's take on taste in the AI era: conducting, not just coordinating — tomjohndesign · 2026-11-13
- How AI quietly flipped from a means to accelerate tech into the end goal itself — zetalyrae · 2026-11-13