@mako yass Thank you for the insight on FTD. 

I think the relationship between MIRI's Functional Decision Theory (FDT) and the Ubuntu philosophy might not be direct or explicit, as they originate from different domains and have distinct theoretical underpinnings. However, there are some potential connections and philosophical parallels between the two. 

While FDT is a formal decision-making framework used in the context of artificial intelligence, and Ubuntu is a philosophical outlook on human relationships and social harmony, there are some potential parallels and common themes that could be explored: 

• Consequentialist Aspect: Both FDT and Ubuntu consider the consequences of actions beyond immediate outcomes. FDT evaluates actions based on their expected long-term effects, while Ubuntu stresses the importance of considering how one's choices impact the broader community and social fabric. 

• Interconnectedness: Ubuntu's core principle of interconnectedness aligns with FDT's recognition of agents' interdependence in decision-making scenarios. In FDT, agents aim to reason about the likely actions of other agents and their implications when making decisions. 

• Cooperative Behavior: FDT can lead to cooperative behaviors among agents, especially when they recognize that their actions influence others' outcomes. Similarly, Ubuntu emphasizes cooperation and mutual support within a community. 

• Ethical Considerations: Both FDT and Ubuntu touch on ethical considerations. FDT is concerned with making decisions that align with an agent's preferences and values, while Ubuntu emphasizes ethical behavior grounded in empathy and compassion for others. 

Despite these potential parallels, it is essential to recognize that FDT is a technical decision theory applied in the domain of artificial intelligence, while Ubuntu is a philosophical outlook rooted in African traditions. The relationship between the two might be more metaphorical or conceptual than direct. 

And as philosophies and theories evolve over time, there may be further developments or discussions that explore the connections between FDT and Ubuntu or their compatibility in ethical decision-making contexts. However, there are no widely known or formal connections between the two as at now that I can think of.

@Luke Eure You are most welcome

Yes, I agree, EA does targeted funding and it is somewhat a principle within the realm. What am advocating for is that if we want to empower African EAs, more tailored funding should be encouraged especially when dealing with African EAs because their situation, needs and problems are unique. For example, access to clean drinking water, food security and basic healthcare needs should be prioritized more than a high-impact action like funding research. What am also saying is that there are opportunities for improvement as regards targeted funding to help African EAs achieve their maximum potential.

The quote, "Instead of dispersing funds..." is just me trying to debunk what targeted funding might mean in different contexts.

True, the charity space doesn't do enough targeting especially as regards the interventions in Africa. EA might therefore benefit more from not just targeted funding but targeted efforts to engage with specific communities or demographics that are currently underrepresented within the movement, especially in the African settings.

By understanding the unique challenges and perspectives of different groups and communities, EA can work towards making their approach more inclusive and relevant to a wider range of people.

The main argument is that EA approaches in Africa have already made significant impact, and yes broadly amongst some key areas (see some areas under the subtopic labelled arguments). EA should thus continue funding but essentially through targeted funding.

Equally, another point is that EA should understand the contextual nuances of Africa especially during interventions so as to identify and address key neglected areas to help maximise on impact.