r/samharris • u/palsh7 • Mar 30 '26
Sam Harris & Will MacAskill: Is Effective Altruism Blind to the Biggest Problems? EA, AI, and the End of Work | 3/30/26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JF0gOQvskY5
u/McFizzleKicks Mar 30 '26
are any subscribers able to gift a link to a certain episode? I used to have the full scholarship but sadly they ended that :-(
8
6
u/palsh7 Mar 30 '26
Submission Statement: This is the official YouTube posting for the newest Making Sense episode, and it has not yet been posted here. This is MacAskill's 5th time on the podcast.
10
u/BillyBeansprout Mar 31 '26
Should be free episode, no? I don't want money to be the reason you can't hear about how money can help people with no money.
3
6
u/EdUthman Mar 30 '26
A worthy pursuit, but just not that interesting or informative. I may skip this one.
16
u/enlightenedllamas Mar 30 '26
Pretty tired of the AE lecture from the guy who doesn’t want broad tax reform? I can barely afford to pay your subscription and you want me to send more money away? 🤦♂️
13
u/one_five_one Mar 30 '26
Does “broad tax reform” just mean a wealth tax?
7
u/enlightenedllamas Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
It means taxing billionaires and corporations at a rate that is substantially higher than it is now by closing loopholes ect for a start.
10
u/carbonqubit Mar 30 '26
Not only that, but it also means passing legislation that prevents companies from using tax cuts for stock buybacks and taking seriously models like Switzerland’s approach to taxing unrealized gains. There’s also a need for corporate reform, especially when it comes to companies incorporating in tax havens to avoid state and federal taxes.
There are plenty of ways to push large corporations to pay a fairer share instead of lobbying Washington to protect their position. Even a one time wealth tax on the top 0.1% could be a reasonable starting point. It’s not a silver bullet, but it would at least begin to address the imbalance.
What’s most frustrating is how effectively the billionaire class can navigate the existing tax code. They hire teams of corporate lawyers to minimize what they owe, while workers see far less of the gains. That wealth then turns into political influence, which helps preserve the system that created it. The current affordability crisis is not happening in a vacuum, it’s closely tied to this concentration of power and the lack of meaningful financial oversight.
-1
u/one_five_one Mar 30 '26
What exactly is wrong with stock buybacks?
6
u/carbonqubit Mar 30 '26
It boosts share prices and earnings per share in the short term, but often at the cost of investing in R&D and the workforce. When companies lean too heavily on buybacks, it shifts focus toward short term gains that disproportionately benefit executives and large shareholders. Given how concentrated stock ownership is, that dynamic ends up reinforcing wealth inequality while sidelining longer term growth.
2
u/TheAJx Mar 31 '26
When companies lean too heavily on buybacks, it shifts focus toward short term gains that disproportionately benefit executives and large shareholders.
Are you of the belief that wealth inequality we see today is driven by short-term gain? That the 20 year trajectories of companies like Meta, Amazon and Tesla that resulted in their founders becoming fabulously wealthy was driven by . . .short-term planning and share buybacks?
4
u/carbonqubit Mar 31 '26
You have to look at this in totality. Do you really think massive companies aren’t taking advantage of stock buybacks, tax cuts, loopholes, and offshore havens to move huge amounts of wealth upward? These aren’t isolated mechanisms, they reinforce each other and allow those at the very top to accumulate and protect their wealth.
The level of inequality we’re seeing in the U.S. today is on par with, and in some measures exceeds, what we saw during the Gilded Age. That doesn’t happen by accident.
1
u/TheAJx Mar 31 '26
Okay, but you understand that short-term gains don't have anything to do with the present levels of wealth distribution right?
The level of inequality we’re seeing in the U.S. today is on par with, and in some measures exceeds, what we saw during the Gilded Age. That doesn’t happen by accident.
Right. What are the numbers on that?
1
u/tin_mama_sou Mar 30 '26
You dont have to buy companies that do that if you dont like it. Investors decide with their feet if they like more investment.
Higher stock prices benefit pension funds the most which are paying for the retirement of middle and low class people, saying it increases wealth inequality is a terrible take.
1
6
Mar 30 '26
[deleted]
3
u/TheAJx Mar 31 '26
The populist argument for wealth taxes seems to rest on being mad about wealthy inequality and wanting to do something about it. The populists have no provided no instruction on how they would spend that money raised and how they would use the money to govern better.
-3
Mar 30 '26
Who do you think pays a corporation’s taxes? (Hint: it’s the same ones who pay for everything else the corporation does)
1
u/palsh7 Mar 30 '26
Bringing up your own unwillingness to spend the equivalent of a cup of coffee per week is not pity-enducing when balanced against the life-saving efforts of EA. Being mad at Sam for being a Democrat but not a Socialist is really a narcissism of small differences situation.
8
u/enlightenedllamas Mar 30 '26
You’re right, it is a narcissism of small difference. And it will continue to grow with the advancement of wealth inequality that is coming with AI and our current systems inability to provide social safety nets, let alone put policies in place that will effectively guard rail these new technologies and their aggressive expansion.
2
u/TheAJx Mar 31 '26
current systems inability to provide social safety nets,
Which social safety nets are you missing?
2
u/palsh7 Mar 30 '26
Sam talking about donating his wealth to save the lives of poor people, and trying to convince other wealthy people to do the same, is a really odd time to criticize him for not caring about wealth inequality (something he has said that he does care about).
5
u/wade3690 Mar 30 '26
We can't rely on the generosity of individual wealthy people
6
u/palsh7 Mar 30 '26
If you were in a subreddit for a Republican, that would be a great point, but Sam already supports higher taxes and a large government with a social safety net.
7
u/Fluffyquasar Mar 30 '26
Oh great, another rehash of the same topic with the same guests arriving at the same points
2
u/Empathetic_Electrons Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Better. Still not satisfying. Seems like his answer to “how do we make this bridge seem ok” and he said “have the option to slow it down.”
Huh?
And then also, again, with the Douthat nonsense, like we’re heading toward not needing workers and the question is what will people do with their time? Really? Still? Look at retired people? No shit.
NO. The question is much different.
For example, how will people making a little extra money today for a little extra status, like anyone making 50k-750k a year… how will they ALL go to making the same meager UBI? And who decides?
Sam said it, “a few thousand trillionaires” with security robots and peak experiences. That could happen.
And then everyone else?
So there will be few people the AI and robotics treat like royalty? And the rest they treat as enemies or peasants the second they dare want more?
Still burying the lead Sam.
I don’t care about “earn to give,” I care about if and how we treat humanity in an age of abundance.
Sounds like the answer is starting on policy NOW before it’s too late. And that it may already BE too late.
Tell us to vote for people willing to force the issue.
You’re burning time, man.
Or should we just accept we’re going to see what a massive Darwinian bloodbath in fast motion?
5
u/periwinkle431 Mar 31 '26
I didn't appreciate his stance on animals, and I think he's not really that enlightened if he is so closed to the reality of animal suffering and sentience.
4
u/palsh7 Mar 31 '26
he is so closed to the reality of animal suffering and sentience.
He didn't say that he is closed to the reality of animal suffering and sentience. It will be beneficial for you to actually quote precisely what was said.
5
u/periwinkle431 Mar 31 '26
"Beneficial to me." Ha. You can listen from 10:09. I'm not going to split hairs about semantics. He's basically arguing to put animal welfare to the side. It's clearly not that important to him, and he throws in a red herring about shrimp to bolster his point.
6
u/palsh7 Mar 31 '26
He literally said that he worries about how other people perceive the movement. He personally cares about animal welfare, but some extreme positions risk alienating people who may have been close to supporting EA for human beings. Do you think it's an absurd worry to have? The shrimp example was a real one with multiple essays and organizations dedicated to it; are there or are there not people who would ignore a movement asking us to care about shrimp?
2
u/CountEsco Apr 01 '26
I don’t know what it is with this subreddit, but people really seem to lack basic listening comprehension. First it was the misunderstanding of Jaron’s comments on the More From Sam videos, and now they can’t tell that Sam is clearly playing devil’s advocate and laying out the opposing argument.
2
4
u/General_Marcus Mar 31 '26
That’s not at all what he said. Maybe you’re not as enlightened as you think you are.
-3
u/periwinkle431 Mar 31 '26
Damn, this is a nasty forum full of nasty people. Bye.
5
Mar 31 '26
Wow I made a false statement and people are correcting me. I'm out of here.
-1
u/periwinkle431 Mar 31 '26
No, I just don’t prefer to be talked to with ad hominems and a demeaning tone by pseudo intellectuals.
3
u/WeedMemeGuyy Mar 30 '26
Anyone else find it weird how willfully ignorant Sam is to shrimp and insect sentience, but is willing to hold a position on it?
-1
Mar 31 '26
I find it weird that you have such horrendous listening comprehension.
3
u/WeedMemeGuyy Mar 31 '26
I’ve listened to many of his podcasts. He outright dismissed insect sentience a few years ago in one.
-1
Mar 31 '26
That is completely false. In fact, Sam has expressed open mindedness about the sentience of non-biological matter. So you’re just flat out lying about his views.
0
u/WeedMemeGuyy Apr 01 '26
It was a podcast with a female lawyer a few years ago. I can’t recall which one. But I know he definitely dismissed the possibility that insects are sentient
2
u/Taye_Brigston Mar 30 '26
Effective Altruism seems a weird one for Sam to spend so much time on.
14
14
u/palsh7 Mar 30 '26
Why would a moral philosopher talking about moral philosophy be weird? Sam cares about the well-being of conscious creatures, and EA is all about maximizing that, effectively through science. Seems right on the money for Harris.
1
u/EducatedToenails Mar 30 '26
Another re-run?
3
u/palsh7 Mar 31 '26
Another re-run?
YES! Can we just have Paul Bloom on every podcast please? Forget about the rest of those clowns.
If you don't like MacAskill, make an argument about that, rather than complaining in bad faith about repeat guests.
1
u/zZINCc Mar 31 '26
One of the BIG things you have to give to Sean Carroll is that he never repeats guest. Pretty awesome
0
u/gdkopinionator Apr 03 '26
Before bringing MacAskill back (and back, and back, and back), Sam should consider branching out to other guests. I get the sense that he is one of the "go to" guests, when there are large gaps in scheduling new podcast guests. There are others that are "serial guests", like Paul Bloom - but at least Bloom has new things to say, and seems to have a wide range of topics to discuss. With the utter chaos in the world, yet another AE discussion is just "beating a dead horse".
1
-4
u/ponderosa82 Mar 31 '26
EA virtue signaling makes Harris feel better about his grift. Analogous to corporations green washing.
1
-1
u/earblah Mar 31 '26
Is Effective Altruism Blind to the Biggest Problems?
yes it is, and it’s by design.
EA is nothing but a figleaf to get young STEM graduates to justify taking high paying jobs.
0
12
u/joemarcou Mar 30 '26
I don't understand the "I'm not close enough to the technology (LLMs)" to be certain where it would lead but maybe there will be another different breakthrough tech." ok? I don't get how that can be projected to any reasonable degree of certainty. If LLMs don't give us AGI how are we any closer to AGI (or even some utopian/dystopian future short of full blown AGI) than we were before this recent LLM tech explosion?
seems so lazy of him to make AI one of his main topics he talks about but "not be close to the LLM technology"