Hide table of contents

Whether you do normative or empirical or quantitative research, much of that research is both related to political science and effective altruism. (If you are wondering if your research qualifies, see our list below of research areas that connect both fields.) 

Nicholas Emery-Xu (UCLA PhD student) and Mahendra Prasad (Berkeley PhD candidate) are planning to organize sessions and events at APSA, the largest annual meeting of political scientists in North America. In past years, we have organized APSA sessions with Allan Dafoe, Toby Ord, Stuart Russell, and others. 

APSA 2023 is scheduled for September 5-8 2024 in Philadelphia. 

If you are unfamiliar with APSA, read the APSA CFP. To increase your probability of acceptance, email Nicholas (niemery@ucla.edu) with your proposal no later than January 9, 2024

Mahendra and Nicholas will give advice on (1) editing your proposal and (2) which divisions or related groups to submit to in order to maximize your likelihood of acceptance. By January 12, 2024, Nick or Mahendra will email you with guidance, and they will help shepherd your proposal until it is submitted by or before January 17, 2024, which is the current APSA deadline.

If your proposal is accepted, we will apply to EA organizations to help cover your travel and board expenses. (Note: Though we will try, we cannot guarantee funding.) 

We will also try to organize mixers at APSA to encourage researchers (who do political science research related to EA) to get to know each other and collaborate, as well as give political science researchers unfamiliar with EA the opportunity to learn more about EA and find potential research collaborations. 

Important Deadlines

January 9, 2024: Email your proposal. Please title your proposal email “My APSA Proposal

January 12, 2024: You will receive a response from Nicholas or Mahendra

January 17, 2023: Current deadline to submit proposal to APSA

If you have any further questions or comments, please don’t hesitate to email Mahendra or Nicholas.

Research areas connecting effective altruism and political science

This is a non-comprehensive list.

  • Algorithmic game theory
  • Animal welfare
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Biological epidemics/warfare
  • Climate change
  • Computational modelling
  • Decision theory
  • Existential risks
  • Extreme poverty & inequality
  • Economics
  • Forecasting
  • Formal modelling
  • Game theory
  • Global catastrophic risks
  • Global priorities research
  • Great powers conflict minimization
  • Institutional decision making
  • Intergenerational governance
  • Mechanism design
  • Multiagent systems
  • Moral uncertainty
  • Nuclear disasters/warfare
  • Political/economic/social philosophy
  • Politics for the long term (e.g., longtermism)
  • Quantitative methods (e.g., causal inference, machine learning, etc.)
  • Social choice
  • Value alignment

2

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
(Audio version here, or search for "Joe Carlsmith Audio" on your podcast app.) > “There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall?”  > > - C.S. Lewis “The Human Condition,” by René Magritte (Image source here) 1. Introduction Sometimes, my thinking feels more “real” to me; and sometimes, it feels more “fake.” I want to do the real version, so I want to understand this spectrum better. This essay offers some reflections.  I give a bunch of examples of this “fake vs. real” spectrum below -- in AI, philosophy, competitive debate, everyday life, and religion. My current sense is that it brings together a cluster of related dimensions, namely: * Map vs. world: Is my mind directed at an abstraction, or it is trying to see past its model to the world beyond? * Hollow vs. solid: Am I using concepts/premises/frames that I secretly suspect are bullshit, or do I expect them to point at basically real stuff, even if imperfectly? * Rote vs. new: Is the thinking pre-computed, or is new processing occurring? * Soldier vs. scout: Is the thinking trying to defend a pre-chosen position, or is it just trying to get to the truth? * Dry vs. visceral: Does the content feel abstract and heady, or does it grip me at some more gut level? These dimensions aren’t the same. But I think they’re correlated – and I offer some speculations about why. In particular, I speculate about their relationship to the “telos” of thinking – that is, to the thing that thinking is “supposed to” do.  I also describe some tags I’m currently using when I remind myself to “really think.” In particular:  * Going slow * Following curiosity/aliveness * Staying in touch with why I’m thinking about something * Tethering my concepts to referents that feel “real” to me * Reminding myself that “arguments are lenses on the world” * Tuning into a relaxing sense of “helplessness” about the truth * Just actually imagining differ
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as