Scott explores what constitutes a deontological bar (hard moral rule) by examining when consequentialist reasoning should be constrained, using debates within AI safety about working with AI companies versus pursuing regulation as his main examples. Longer summary

Scott examines the concept of deontological bars - hard moral rules that shouldn't be broken even for good consequences - and tries to develop a framework for determining what counts as such a rule. He starts with the classic example of not assassinating leaders, then explores various formulations like 'act as if your maxim would become a general law' and 'don't defect from functioning norms,' testing them against cases like military disarmament and spreading misinformation. The post is motivated by debates in AI safety between those working with AI companies and those pursuing pause/ban regulations, with each side suspecting the other might be violating deontological bars. Scott proposes that the rule might be 'don't do something which would be bad if universalized, unless the norm is non-functioning in such a way that you'd be playing cooperate while your enemy plays defect,' though he acknowledges this requires interpretive work and common sense to apply. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander satirizes media coverage of Effective Altruism by applying similar reporting tactics to other causes and movements. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a satirical piece mimicking media reporting on Effective Altruism by applying similar rhetorical techniques to other topics and movements. He creates fictional news stories about climate change, political activism, drunk driving prevention, and other causes, using logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and sensationalism to mock how media often portrays Effective Altruism. The post highlights how these reporting tactics can unfairly discredit or misrepresent important causes and movements. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reflects on reader comments about his review of Jordan Peterson's '12 Rules for Life', discussing interpretations of Peterson's philosophy and its impacts. Longer summary

This post summarizes and reflects on various comments made in response to Scott Alexander's review of Jordan Peterson's book '12 Rules for Life'. The comments cover a range of topics including Peterson's philosophical approach, his views on meaning and suffering, his impact on readers, and comparisons to other thinkers like C.S. Lewis. Scott provides his own thoughts on these interpretations, discussing ideas around the nature of meaning, the role of inspiration vs truth, and the merits of Peterson's approach to self-improvement and politics. He also considers how Peterson's ideas might be viewed from different philosophical perspectives. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that effective altruism should be wary of pursuing systemic change, as it risks wasting resources and alienating supporters. Longer summary

Scott Alexander expresses concerns about effective altruism focusing on systemic change rather than traditional charity. He argues that pursuing systemic change risks wasting resources on politically divisive issues, potentially making catastrophic errors, and alienating potential supporters. The post is structured as a dialogue between two viewpoints, followed by additional arguments. Scott concludes that effective altruism's focus on direct, quantifiable interventions is valuable and shouldn't be lost in pursuit of more politically charged systemic change. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that donating 10% of income to effective charities is a more impactful way to do good than political activism, and recommends joining Giving What We Can. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the moral obligation to engage in politics and activism, comparing it to other forms of doing good, particularly charitable giving. He argues that while many feel pressured to be politically active, donating money to effective charities is often a more impactful way to help others. The post suggests that instead of feeling guilty for not doing enough, people should aim to give 10% of their income to charity as a reasonable and achievable goal. This standard, promoted by organizations like Giving What We Can, is presented as a balanced approach to making a positive difference without falling into despair or inaction. Scott concludes by recommending readers consider joining Giving What We Can. Shorter summary

The post explores the contradiction between studies suggesting elite influence on policy and those indicating money's limited impact on politics, offering several hypotheses to reconcile these findings. Longer summary

This post discusses two seemingly contradictory political science findings: one suggesting that elite opinion strongly influences US policy, and another indicating that money has little impact on politics. The author presents several hypotheses to reconcile these findings, including the possibility that legislators are themselves elites, that elites control cultural institutions, or that money influences politics through lobbying rather than campaign contributions. The post critically examines each hypothesis, considering their strengths and weaknesses in explaining the apparent contradiction. Shorter summary