However, it’s important to note that the path that maximizes your own individual hardship is not necessarily the one that maximizes your contribution to humanity’s future. For example, it’s possible that by keeping some of that money, you could buy luxuries (like, say, a Netflix subscription) that would allow you to recover more quickly from work-related weariness and spend your evenings starting an online company (or acquiring the skills necessary to start an online company, and then starting an online company) that would result in a larger expected donation to SIAI in the long term.
I used to have your attitude of “live very frugally and give SIAI every spare dollar”. My new attitude is optimize for both high income and low expenses (keeping in mind that spending money on myself increases my expected income up to a certain point), and to not donate to SIAI automatically—I’m thinking of starting a rival charity in the long run (due to vague intuition, based on very limited evidence, that healthy competition can be good for charities, and the fact that I have some ideas that I think might be better than SIAI’s that Michael Vassar doesn’t seem interested in).
By the way, I declare Crocker’s Rules—it would be extremely valuable if someone provided persuasive evidence that I’m on the wrong track.
I am not a super hero or an ascetic. I’m a regular random internet person with a particular focus on the future. I only donated 26 percent of my gross income last year. And I have a Netflix subscription.
Just had to get that out of my system, but as a whole i act in accordance with what you just stated and i hope you do start that charity if it turns out competition is good for charities.
Furthermore, i hope that i can get to the point where i can invoke Crocker’s Rules on my own points.
This is admirable.
However, it’s important to note that the path that maximizes your own individual hardship is not necessarily the one that maximizes your contribution to humanity’s future. For example, it’s possible that by keeping some of that money, you could buy luxuries (like, say, a Netflix subscription) that would allow you to recover more quickly from work-related weariness and spend your evenings starting an online company (or acquiring the skills necessary to start an online company, and then starting an online company) that would result in a larger expected donation to SIAI in the long term.
I used to have your attitude of “live very frugally and give SIAI every spare dollar”. My new attitude is optimize for both high income and low expenses (keeping in mind that spending money on myself increases my expected income up to a certain point), and to not donate to SIAI automatically—I’m thinking of starting a rival charity in the long run (due to vague intuition, based on very limited evidence, that healthy competition can be good for charities, and the fact that I have some ideas that I think might be better than SIAI’s that Michael Vassar doesn’t seem interested in).
By the way, I declare Crocker’s Rules—it would be extremely valuable if someone provided persuasive evidence that I’m on the wrong track.
I am not a super hero or an ascetic. I’m a regular random internet person with a particular focus on the future. I only donated 26 percent of my gross income last year. And I have a Netflix subscription.
Your superpower is willpower and you exist as a hero to many :)
Your dumb, i wish i could be more like Rain.
Just had to get that out of my system, but as a whole i act in accordance with what you just stated and i hope you do start that charity if it turns out competition is good for charities. Furthermore, i hope that i can get to the point where i can invoke Crocker’s Rules on my own points.
Thanks for the feedback!