For some, very roughly yes, with the added proviso that no-one is quite certain what values should be maximized, introducing a wide range of ethical uncertainty. This tends to be the case for utilitarian EAs especially, who (like me) consider optimization of a value called utility a central ideal to aspire towards.A central problem that the community as a whole (utilitarians and others) has formed around is the question of how to use donation money to most effectively increase wellbeing in the world for the most moral patients and with the greatest probability (expected value). The idea is to triage efforts based on a relatively simple set of agreed upon criteria: scale, tractability, neglectednes, and (individually) personal fit. The most interesting of these is neglectednes. By finding flaws in the prioritization of previous and existing approaches effective altruists hope to pull off something along the lines of "ethical arbitrage" because more marginal good can be done in worthwhile areas currently receiving not even basic attention than in popular areas where the best uses of funds have already been adequately funded.In general, the observation that discounting a value on the basis of distance in space or time is fundamentally a baseless product of bias, has led to concern for people in other countries and in other times. (A sub set of EAs called Longtermists are focused on helping just such distant persons.) There's also been a strong movement to expand our moral circle against biases of selfishness (genetic and otherwise) and in-group biases. As a result we tend to be openminded and morally serious about the prospect of treating an unusually wide range of others as moral patients and valuable individuals.There is considerable debate about what should be optimized, how, and why. Moral and ethical principles are vital parts of EA and serve to orient different projects - but the central principle that allows us to cooperate is altruism guided and refined by rational and empirical consideration.Most of the hard math being done concerns funds. There's considerable existing research to build off of and dollars earned for charity offer an objective metric.Recently there's been a lot of controversy and bad press because some financial quant EAs from MIT went on to FTX where they worked for SBF, himself an EA, and CONed people out of a lot of money as a result of shady business practices.Just being transparent with you here, though you probably already heard.It was pretty fucked up.I'm Random Ambles by the way. I study utilitarian ethical philosophy, genetic engineering, factory farming, and wild animal suffering and have been getting into pandemic risk lately as well. I'm a recreational mathematician but probably couldn't hold a candle to a real quant like yourself. (Always down to exchange puzzles if you like.) I'm a volunteer in the EA community and lack any formal position of influence, nor am I paid.I'm afraid I can't speak much to the kinds of math serious, professional EAs do in furtherance of their research. The EA forums are a much better place to look, along with givewell, and 80,000 hours. If you have any questions about topics in EA I might know more about feel free to ask; I'm happy to help with anything I can.Thanks for checking us out!
- No location available
-

For some, very roughly yes, with the added proviso that no-one is quite certain what values should be maximized, introducing a wide range of ethical uncertainty. This tends to be the case for utilitarian EAs especially, who (like me) consider optimization of a value called utility a central ideal to aspire towards.A central problem that the community as a whole (utilitarians and others) has formed around is the question of how to use donation money to most effectively increase wellbeing in the world for the most moral patients and with the greatest probability (expected value). The idea is to triage efforts based on a relatively simple set of agreed upon criteria: scale, tractability, neglectednes, and (individually) personal fit. The most interesting of these is neglectednes. By finding flaws in the prioritization of previous and existing approaches effective altruists hope to pull off something along the lines of "ethical arbitrage" because more marginal good can be done in worthwhile areas currently receiving not even basic attention than in popular areas where the best uses of funds have already been adequately funded.In general, the observation that discounting a value on the basis of distance in space or time is fundamentally a baseless product of bias, has led to concern for people in other countries and in other times. (A sub set of EAs called Longtermists are focused on helping just such distant persons.) There's also been a strong movement to expand our moral circle against biases of selfishness (genetic and otherwise) and in-group biases. As a result we tend to be openminded and morally serious about the prospect of treating an unusually wide range of others as moral patients and valuable individuals.There is considerable debate about what should be optimized, how, and why. Moral and ethical principles are vital parts of EA and serve to orient different projects - but the central principle that allows us to cooperate is altruism guided and refined by rational and empirical consideration.Most of the hard math being done concerns funds. There's considerable existing research to build off of and dollars earned for charity offer an objective metric.Recently there's been a lot of controversy and bad press because some financial quant EAs from MIT went on to FTX where they worked for SBF, himself an EA, and CONed people out of a lot of money as a result of shady business practices.Just being transparent with you here, though you probably already heard.It was pretty fucked up.I'm Random Ambles by the way. I study utilitarian ethical philosophy, genetic engineering, factory farming, and wild animal suffering and have been getting into pandemic risk lately as well. I'm a recreational mathematician but probably couldn't hold a candle to a real quant like yourself. (Always down to exchange puzzles if you like.) I'm a volunteer in the EA community and lack any formal position of influence, nor am I paid.I'm afraid I can't speak much to the kinds of math serious, professional EAs do in furtherance of their research. The EA forums are a much better place to look, along with givewell, and 80,000 hours. If you have any questions about topics in EA I might know more about feel free to ask; I'm happy to help with anything I can.Thanks for checking us out!
- No location available
-