Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
Dawn Drescher3
0
0

Cool idea!

A few things I just noticed:

  1. It would be nice if the reordering happened only on reload and not immediately. I sometimes ticked an “importance” box fully intent to also tick another one, but then the block jumped away, and I’d have to go looking for it again.
  2. I second Saulius’s feedback: I also feel like it’d be easier for me to rate things on a three- or five-point scale or even with a slider. As it is, I’m tempted to tick almost all the boxes on all problems.
  3. I really like your initial selection. I had a hard time voting on animal welfare because my assessments of farmed and wild animal welfare are so different. Then I noticed that you had anticipated my problem and added the subsections!
  4. The term tractable seems more intuitive to me than solvable, since the second can be misunderstood as whether the problem can be fully solved as opposed to the definition that Saulius cites.
  5. I’d like to make a distinction (and maybe a granular one) between whether I think a problem is not important/neglected/tractable or whether I have no opinion on it. E.g., I currently don’t know whether the Pain Gap is tractably addressable, but not ticking the box feels as if I were saying that it’s not tractable.
  6. Not showing other people’s ratings could help avoid anchoring people.
Reply
adamkruger3
0
0

Thanks so much for your feedback Denis!

Here are my responses:

1. I definitely agree - I tried fixing this but had some difficulty. It may be doable, I'll have to try again haha. Good news though is that if there are more people using the platforms, there will likely be more of a delta in scoring between the different problem areas, therefore blocks will jump/reorder less often.

2. Similar to my reply to Saulius above on this, do you think a three or five point scale would be viewed as more effort / thinking required for some people? Maybe it's actu... (read more)

Reply
See in context
by adamkruger
1 min read 4

8

Cause prioritizationCommunityRequests (closed)Wikis
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://listofproblems.bubbleapps.io/

Hey there,

Thanks for opening this post - glad it caught your eye. :)

I created a Cause Prioritization website with the purpose of creating a space for all EAs (and people in general) to share their views on which problems/causes should be top priorities.

https://listofproblems.bubbleapps.io/

The goal is that the platform would be able to help us better prioritize our efforts, and would serve as a forum similar to this one, but focused specifically on cause prioritization.

The website is still in its very early stages, so I'd love to hear any ideas, suggestions, or feedback you have for improving it.

Thanks again!

Adam


8

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments4


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
saulius29
0
0

Some quick thoughts:

  1. There is no way to say that I think the problem is not big/neglected/solvable. Hence ratings provide little information. It could be that only 1 in 10 people think that a problem is solvable, but if enough people think about voting on the cause, it will have a higher solvability rating than a problem that is in a less prominent place within the website. And if you sort problems by "most attention required", then problems that received most votes initially will continue receiving more votes. Instead of a checkbox, I would put a slider so we could vote how solvable a problem is.

  2. People who know very little about problems can vote, and their votes will weight the same as people who know a lot about arguments for and against the issue. If someone mentions the website in some animal discussion group, you might get many people voting favourably for animal causes and skew the results. Hence, as it is, it's currently more of a popularity contest rather than something that could be helpful prioritise. And the EA survey might be better for gauging popularity of various causes.

  3. Scale-neglectedness-solvability framework needs to be applied with care and not all the readers will do that. Maybe a different phrasing of questions would help. E.g. instead of "think this is a solvable problem" you could have something like "if we doubled the resources dedicated to solving this problem, what fraction of the problem would we expect to solve?" (taken from here). Also, it's unclear whether this is the best framework for prioritizing causes, it's been criticised. And we already have ratings for scale-neglectedness-tractability at the 80,000 hours website, I'm not sure this will give more accurate ratings.

I like how the website looks, how it's organized, and how fast it is though. I think that it could be a good idea to have a website for cause prioritization discussions. Although I think there would be a big chance that it wouldn't become popular, even if you do it well. One way to make such website that I imagine could maybe be useful is if you could post various arguments for and against a cause area, and other people could upvote/downvote/comment on these arguments, or propose different ways to phrase them. I remember that a couple of years ago some Scandinavian EA wanted to make a platform that was similar to this but I can't find it now.

Also, in case you didn't know, there are two wikis about cause prioritisation: http://priority.wiki/ and https://causeprioritization.org/ Maybe information in them could be used in some way.

Reply
adamkruger1
0
0

Thanks so much for your thoughtful feedback - I really appreciate it.

A few responses:

  • Don't you think there will be at least some people who view certain problems as not big, neglected, and/or solvable? I was thinking it'd be interesting to see which problems received the most "votes" across each of these 3 dimensions
  • I definitely agree with your concern that problems that receive the most votes initially may continue to receive more votes. Would your suggestion for addressing this be to remove the ability to sort by "most attention required," or do you have any other ideas?
  • I thought about doing a slider but felt a checkbox required less thinking/effort, and I thought that on aggregate there was still value in seeing which problems were "checked" off the most
  • To your point about the weighting of votes based on people's backgrounds, doesn't this come down to the pros and cons of a democratic voting system?
  • I completely agree with you that the phrasing of the statements needs to be used with care. My thinking though was that a statement like "think this is a solvable problem" would be easier to understand and therefore more likely to get a response than a statement like "if we doubled the resources dedicated to solving this problem, what fraction of the problem would we expect to solve?". Thoughts?
  • If you happen to find the Scandinavian EA, would you mind connecting me with them please?
  • Finally, thanks for those two wiki links - they were very useful!

Adam

Reply
Dawn Drescher3
0
0

Cool idea!

A few things I just noticed:

  1. It would be nice if the reordering happened only on reload and not immediately. I sometimes ticked an “importance” box fully intent to also tick another one, but then the block jumped away, and I’d have to go looking for it again.
  2. I second Saulius’s feedback: I also feel like it’d be easier for me to rate things on a three- or five-point scale or even with a slider. As it is, I’m tempted to tick almost all the boxes on all problems.
  3. I really like your initial selection. I had a hard time voting on animal welfare because my assessments of farmed and wild animal welfare are so different. Then I noticed that you had anticipated my problem and added the subsections!
  4. The term tractable seems more intuitive to me than solvable, since the second can be misunderstood as whether the problem can be fully solved as opposed to the definition that Saulius cites.
  5. I’d like to make a distinction (and maybe a granular one) between whether I think a problem is not important/neglected/tractable or whether I have no opinion on it. E.g., I currently don’t know whether the Pain Gap is tractably addressable, but not ticking the box feels as if I were saying that it’s not tractable.
  6. Not showing other people’s ratings could help avoid anchoring people.
Reply
adamkruger3
0
0

Thanks so much for your feedback Denis!

Here are my responses:

1. I definitely agree - I tried fixing this but had some difficulty. It may be doable, I'll have to try again haha. Good news though is that if there are more people using the platforms, there will likely be more of a delta in scoring between the different problem areas, therefore blocks will jump/reorder less often.

2. Similar to my reply to Saulius above on this, do you think a three or five point scale would be viewed as more effort / thinking required for some people? Maybe it's actually a good thing if it requires more thinking, but just wanted to get your perspective on this

3. Thanks! The goal is to have sub-sections, sub-sub sections, etc. That's what I find most excited about this concept - the ability to break down these problems further and further to identify where we should focus our efforts within each umbrella :)

4. Interesting, for me it was the opposite haha. Before learning about EA, I wasn't really familiar with the term tractable. I'll definitely change this if I get more feedback like yours.

5. I completely understand your perspective on this. I thought quite a bit about the construct for this, and wanted to keep it as simple as possible - which meant limited the number of options available to select. My thought was that if someone is on the fence about whether or not to select a box, and some of those people end up choosing not to select it, that's probably an indication that it's a less important issue than one that seems unequivocally large, neglected or solvable. Is that fair?

6. What if I only showed other people's ratings after your voted yourself? Would that help?

Thanks again!

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 32m read
 · 
Summary Immediate skin-to-skin contact (SSC) between mothers and newborns and early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) may play a significant and underappreciated role in reducing neonatal mortality. These practices are distinct in important ways from more broadly recognized (and clearly impactful) interventions like kangaroo care and exclusive breastfeeding, and they are recommended for both preterm and full-term infants. A large evidence base indicates that immediate SSC and EIBF substantially reduce neonatal mortality. Many randomized trials show that immediate SSC promotes EIBF, reduces episodes of low blood sugar, improves temperature regulation, and promotes cardiac and respiratory stability. All of these effects are linked to lower mortality, and the biological pathways between immediate SSC, EIBF, and reduced mortality are compelling. A meta-analysis of large observational studies found a 25% lower risk of mortality in infants who began breastfeeding within one hour of birth compared to initiation after one hour. These practices are attractive targets for intervention, and promoting them is effective. Immediate SSC and EIBF require no commodities, are under the direct influence of birth attendants, are time-bound to the first hour after birth, are consistent with international guidelines, and are appropriate for universal promotion. Their adoption is often low, but ceilings are demonstrably high: many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have rates of EIBF less than 30%, yet several have rates over 70%. Multiple studies find that health worker training and quality improvement activities dramatically increase rates of immediate SSC and EIBF. There do not appear to be any major actors focused specifically on promotion of universal immediate SSC and EIBF. By contrast, general breastfeeding promotion and essential newborn care training programs are relatively common. More research on cost-effectiveness is needed, but it appears promising. Limited existing
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.  Overview Background This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.  This conference has evolved since 2023: * The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel. * The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working. * This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round. We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.  Luckily, it seems like it has been working!  This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.  Outcomes On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3
Relevant opportunities
11
Help tighten up a calculator for cost effectiveness of addiction treatment?
LSterling
· · 1m read
0
0
20
(How) can we help the EA-space with our MEL/impact Consulting best?
Q
Teresa Jakovlev
· · 1m read
6
6
4
Planned Pilot Project: Curated Video-Based EA Learning Platform
Erik Jentzen
· · 1m read
0
0
View more