Hide table of contents
The host has requested RSVPs for this event
1 Going0 Maybe0 Can't Go
christian

Join us for Forecast Friday tomorrow at 12pm ET, where Metaculus Pro Forecaster Metaculus Pro Forecaster Michał Dubrawski will present and lead discussion on shifting territorial control in Ukraine.

Michał has forecast on Metaculus since 2019 and signed on as a Pro Forecaster last year. He's also an INFER pro forecaster and a member of the Swift Centre forecasting team.

Tomorrow, he'll focus on the following forecast questions: 

Will Ukraine have de facto control of the city council building in Mariupol on January 1, 2024?


Add Forecast Fridays to your Google Calendar or click here for other formats. 

Forecast Friday events feature three rooms:

  • Forensic Friday, where a highly-ranked forecaster will lead discussion on a forecast of interest
  • Freshman Friday, where new and experienced users alike can learn more about how to use the platform
  • Friday Frenzy, a spirited discussion about the forecasts on questions on the front page of the main feed

This event will take place virtually in the EA Gather Town from 12pm to 1pm ET.

To join, enter Gather Town and use the Metaculus portal. We'll see you there!

5

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments
Everyone who RSVP'd to this event will be notified.


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
This post summarizes a new meta-analysis from the Humane and Sustainable Food Lab. We analyze the most rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that aim to reduce consumption of meat and animal products (MAP). We conclude that no theoretical approach, delivery mechanism, or persuasive message should be considered a well-validated means of reducing MAP consumption. By contrast, reducing consumption of red and processed meat (RPM) appears to be an easier target. However, if RPM reductions lead to more consumption of other MAP like chicken and fish, this is likely bad for animal welfare and doesn’t ameliorate zoonotic outbreak or land and water pollution. We also find that many promising approaches await rigorous evaluation. This post updates a post from a year ago. We first summarize the current paper, and then describe how the project and its findings have evolved. What is a rigorous RCT? There is no consensus, either in our field or between fields, about what counts as a valid, informative design, but we operationalize “rigorous RCT” as any study that: * Randomly assigns participants to a treatment and control group * Measures consumption directly -- rather than (or in addition to) attitudes, intentions, or hypothetical choices -- at least a single day after treatment begins * Has at least 25 subjects in both treatment and control, or, in the case of cluster-assigned studies (e.g. university classes that all attend a lecture together or not), at least 10 clusters in total. Additionally, studies needed to intend to reduce MAP consumption, rather than (e.g.) encouraging people to switch from beef to chicken, and be publicly available by December 2023. We found 35 papers, comprising 41 studies and 112 interventions, that met these criteria. 18 of 35 papers have been published since 2020. The main theoretical approaches: Broadly speaking, studies used Persuasion, Choice Architecture, Psychology, and a combination of Persuasion and Psychology to try to cha
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
[This post was written quickly and presents the idea in broad strokes. I hope it prompts more nuanced and detailed discussions in the future.] In recent years, many in the Effective Altruism community have shifted to working on AI risks, reflecting the growing consensus that AI will profoundly shape our future.  In response to this significant shift, there have been efforts to preserve a "principles-first EA" approach, or to give special thought into how to support non-AI causes. This has often led to discussions being framed around "AI Safety vs. everything else". And it feels like the community is somewhat divided along the following lines: 1. Those working on AI Safety, because they believe that transformative AI is coming. 2. Those focusing on other causes, implicitly acting as if transformative AI is not coming.[1] Instead of framing priorities this way, I believe it would be valuable for more people to adopt a mindset that assumes transformative AI is likely coming and asks: What should we work on in light of that? If we accept that AI is likely to reshape the world over the next 10–15 years, this realisation will have major implications for all cause areas. But just to start, we should strongly ask ourselves: "Are current GHW & animal welfare projects robust to a future in which AI transforms economies, governance, and global systems?" If they aren't, they are unlikely to be the best use of resources. 
Importantly, this isn't an argument that everyone should work on AI Safety. It's an argument that all cause areas need to integrate the implications of transformative AI into their theory of change and strategic frameworks. To ignore these changes is to risk misallocating resources and pursuing projects that won't stand the test of time. 1. ^ Important to note: Many people believe that AI will be transformative, but choose not to work on it due to factors such as (perceived) lack of personal fit or opportunity, personal circumstances, or other pra
LewisBollard
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- > They’re imperfect agents of change The world’s three largest animal welfare groups are under attack. Their antagonists are not factory farmers, but other animal groups. And the ASPCA, HSUS, and RSPCA stand accused not of hurting farmers, but of hurting animals, through their work with GAP and RSPCA Assured, which certify animal products as being less cruelly produced. The attacks began last summer when the UK animal rights group Animal Rising released a report and footage showing abuses on RSPCA Assured farms. They’ve since forced the RSPCA to cancel its 200th year celebrations, plastered portraits of RSPCA patron King Charles, and persuaded the ceremonial president and two vice-presidents of the RSPCA to resign in protest. (To understand their perspective, I recommend this interview with Animal Rising co-director Ben Newman.) A few months ago, PETA launched a new front in the war, taking out full-page ads in the The New York Times and The Washington Post slamming the ASPCA and HSUS for associating with GAP. (Ingrid Newkirk laid out PETA’s case here.) PETA activists have since picketed the homes of the CEOs of both groups, disrupted the organizations’ fundraising events, and persuaded actor James Cromwell to throw away an HSUS award. “It has to stop” is how I feel about PETA’s campaign against the ASPCA and HSUS. Image: PETA’s full-page ads in the New York Times and Washington Post. Source: PETA. With friends like these I originally planned to write a newsletter about infighting. I would have argued that our movement lacks the resources to spare some to attack one another. And I would have cited a 2023 survey by the Social Change Lab, in which 120 social movement academics rated “internal conflict or movement inf