Austin's Quick takes

Austin

Austin's Quick takes

Austin

1 min readMar 3, 2022

Frontpage

Comments 17

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Austin

Community

Some reflections on the Manifest 2024 discourse:

I’m annoyed (with “the community”, but mostly with human nature & myself) that this kind of drama gets so much more attention than eg typical reviews of the Manifest experience, or our retrospectives of work on Manifund, which I wish got even 10% of this engagement. It's fun to be self-righteous on the internet, fun to converse with many people who I respect, fun especially when they come to your defense (thanks!), but I feel guilty at the amount of attention this has sucked up for everyone involved.

This bit from Paul Graham makes a lot more sense to me now:

> When someone contradicts you, they're in a sense attacking you. Sometimes pretty overtly. Your instinct when attacked is to defend yourself. But like a lot of instincts, this one wasn't designed for the world we now live in. Counterintuitive as it feels, it's better most of the time not to defend yourself. Otherwise these people are literally taking your life.

Kudos to all y'all who are practicing the virtue of silence and avoiding engaging with this.
While it could have been much, much better written, on net I’m glad the Guardian article exists. And not just in a "all PR is good PR" sense, or even a “weak opponents are superweapons” sense; I think there's a legitimate concern there that's worthy of reporting. I like the idea of inviting the journalists to come to Manifest in the future.
That said, I am quite annoyed that now many people who didn’t attend Manifest, may think of it as "Edgelordcon". I once again encourage people who weren't there to look at our actual schedule, or to skim over some of the many many post-Manifest reports, to get a more representative sense of what Manifest is like or about.
If Edgelordcon is what you really wanted, consider going to something like Hereticon instead of Manifest, thanks.
Not sure how many people already know this but I formally left Manifold a couple months ago. I'm the most comfortable writing publicly out of the 3 founders, but while I'm still on the company board, I expect Manifold vs my own views to diverge more over time.
Also, Rachel and Saul were much more instrumental in making Manifest 2024 happen than me. Their roles were approximately co-directors, while I'm more like a producer of the event. So most of the credit for a well-run event goes to them; I wish more people engaged with their considerations, rather than mine. (Blame for the invites, as I mentioned, falls on me.)
EA Forum is actually pretty good for having nuanced discussion: the threading and upvote vs agreevote and reactions all help compared to other online discourse. Kudos to the team! (Online text-based discourse does remain intrinsically more divisive than offline, though, which I don't love. I wish more people eg took up Saul on his offer to call with folks.)
Overall my impression of the state of the EA community has ticked upwards as a result of this all this. I’m glad to be here!
Some of my favorite notes amidst all this: Isa, huw, TracingWoodgrains, and Nathan Young on their experiences, Richard Ngo against deplatforming, Jacob and Oli on their thoughts, Bentham's Bulldog and Theo Jaffee on their defenses of the event, and Saul and Rachel on their perspectives as organizers.

Saul Munn

cosigned, generally.

most strongly, i agree with:

(1), (3), (4)

i also somewhat agree with:

(2), (7), (8), (9)

[the rest of this comment is a bit emotional, a bit of a rant/ramble. i don't necessarily reflectively endorse the below, but i think it pretty accurately captures my state of mind while writing.]

but man, people can be mean. twitter is a pretty low bar, and although the discourse on twitter isn't exactly enjoyable, my impression of the EA forum has also gone down over the last few days. most of the comments that critique my/rachel's/austin's decisions (and many of the ones supporting our decisions!) have made me quite sad/anxious/ashamed in ways i don't endorse — and (most) have done ~nothing to reduce the likelihood that i invite speakers who the commenters consider racist to the next manifest.

~~i'm a little confused about the goals of a lot of the folks who're commenting. like, their (your?) marginal 20 minutes would be WAY more effective by... idk,~~ ~~hopping on a call with me~~ ~~or something?~~^[1] [june23-2024 — edit: jeff's comment has explained why: yes, 1:1 discussion with me is better for the goal of improving/changing manifest's decisions, but many of the comments are "trying to hash out what EA community ... norms should be in this sort of situation, and that seems ... reasonably well suited for public discussion."]

there have been a few comments that are really great, both some that are in support of our decisions & some that are against them — austin highlighted a few that i had in mind, like Isa's and huw's. and, a few folks have reached out independently to offer their emotional support, which is really kind of them. these are the things that make me agree with (8): i don't think that, in many communities, folks who might disagree with me on the object level would offer their emotional support for me on the meta-level.

i'm grateful to the folks who're disagreeing (& agreeing) with me constructively~~; to everyone else... idk, man, at least hold off on commenting until you've given me a call or let me buy you a coffee or something.~~ [june23-2024 — see edit above]

^{^}
and i would explicitly encourage you, dear reader, to do so! please! i would like to talk to you much more than i would like to read your comment on the EA forum, and way more than i'd like to read your twitter post! i would very much like to adjust my decision-making process to be better, and insofar as you think that's good, please do so through a medium that's much higher bandwidth!

Jeff Kaufman 🔸

i'm a little confused about the goals of a lot of the folks who're commenting. like, their (your?) marginal 20 minutes would be WAY more effective by... idk, hopping on a call with me or something?

To the extent that people are trying to influence future Manifest decisions or your views in particular, I agree that 1:1 private discussion would often be better. But I read a lot of the discussion as people trying to hash out what EA community (broadly construed) norms should be in this sort of situation, and that seems to me like it's reasonably well suited for public discussion?

Saul Munn

thanks, this has cleared things up quite a bit for me. i edited my comment to reflect it!

Chris Leong

I’d strongly recommend against inviting them. If they decide to come, then I’d probably let them, but intentionally bringing in people who want to stir up drama is a bad idea and would ruin the vibes.

tlevin

Fwiw, I think the main thing getting missed in this discourse is that even 3 out of your 50 speakers (especially if they're near the top of the bill) are mostly known for a cluster of edgy views that are not welcome in most similar spaces, people who really want to gather to discuss those edgy and typically unwelcome views will be a seriously disproportionate share of attendees, and this will have significant repercussions for the experience of the attendees who were primarily interested in the other 47 speakers.

Austin

Anthropic's donation program seems to have been recently pared down? I recalled it as 3:1, see eg this comment on Feb 2023. But right now on https://www.anthropic.com/careers:
> Optional equity donation matching at a 1:1 ratio, up to 25% of your equity grant

Curious if anyone knows the rationale for this -- I'm thinking through how to structure Manifund's own compensation program to tax-efficiently encourage donations, and was looking at the Anthropic program for inspiration.

I'm also wondering if existing Anthropic employees still get the 3:1 terms, or the program has been changed for everyone going forward. Given the rumored $60b raise, Anthropic equity donations are set to be a substantial share of EA giving going forward, so the precise mechanics of the giving program could change funding considerations by a lot.

One (conservative imo) ballpark:

If founders + employees broadly own 30% of outstanding equity
50% of that has been assigned and vested
20% of employees will donate
20% of their equity within the next 4 years

then $60b x 0.3 x 0.5 x 0.2 x 0.2 / 4 = $90m/y. And the difference between 1:1 and 3:1 match is the difference between $180m/y of giving and $360m/y.

Habryka [Deactivated]

It's been confirmed that the donation matching still applies to early employees: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HE3Styo9vpk7m8zi4/evhub-s-shortform?commentId=oeXHdxZixbc7wwqna

Lorenzo Buonanno🔸

I would be surprised if the 3:1 match applied to founders as well. Also, I think 20% of employees donating 20% of their equity within the next 4 years is very optimistic.

My guess is that donations from Antrhopic/OpenAI will depend largely on what the founders decide to do with their money. Forbes estimates Altman and Daniela Amodei at ~$1B each, and Altman signed the Giving Pledge.

See also this article from Jan 8:

At Anthropic’s new valuation, each of its seven founders — [...] — are set to become billionaires. Forbes estimates that each cofounder will continue to hold more than 2% of Anthropic’s equity each, meaning their net worths are at least $1.2 billion.

I don't think Forbes numbers are particularly reliable, and I think that there's a significant chance that Anthropic and/or OpenAI equity goes to 0; but in general, I expect founders to both have much more money than employees and be more inclined to donate significant parts of it (partly because of diminishing marginal returns of wealth)

Austin

It's a good point about how it applies to founders specifically - under the old terms (3:1 match up to 50% of stock grant) it would imply a maximum extra cost from Anthropic of 1.5x whatever the founders currently hold. That's a lot!

Those bottom line figures doesn't seem crazy optimistic to me, though - like, my guess is a bunch of folks at Anthropic expect AGI on the inside of 4 years, and Anthropic is the go to example of "founded by EAs". I would take an even-odds bet that the total amount donated to charity out of Anthropic equity, excluding matches, is >$400m in 4 years time.

Lorenzo Buonanno🔸

I would take an even-odds bet that the total amount donated to charity out of Anthropic equity, excluding matches, is >$400m in 4 years time.

If Anthropic doesn't lose >85% of its valuation (which can definitely happen) I would expect way more.

As mentioned above, each of its seven cofounders is likely to become worth >$500m, and I would expect many of them to donate significantly.

Anthropic is the go to example of "founded by EAs"

I find these kind of statements a bit weird. My sense is that it used to be true, but they don't necessarily identify themselves with the EA movement anymore: it's never mentioned in interviews, and when asked by journalists they explicitly deny it.

Austin

Missing-but-wanted children now substantially outnumber unwanted births. Missing kids are a global phenomenon, not just a rich-world problem. Multiplying out each country’s fertility gap by its population of reproductive age women reveals that, for women entering their reproductive years in 2010 in the countries in my sample, there are likely to be a net 270 million missing births—if fertility ideals and birth rates hold stable. Put another way, over the 30 to 40 years these women would potentially be having children, that’s about 6 to 10 million missing babies per year thanks to the global undershooting of fertility.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-global-fertility-gap

Austin

For reference - malaria kills 600k a year. Covid has killed 6m to date.

If you believe creating an extra life is worth about the same as preventing an extra death (very controversial, but I hold something like this) then increasing fertility is an excellent cause area.

Austin

-2

What's the QALY cost of the sanctions on Russia? How does it compare to the QALY lost in the Ukraine conflict?

My sense of the media narrative has been "Russia/Putin bad, Ukraine good, sanctions good". But if you step back (a lot) and squint, both direct warfare and economic sanctions share the property of being negative-sum transactions. Has anyone done an order-of-magnitude calculation for the cost of this?

(extremely speculative)

Quick stab: Valuing one QALY at $100k (rough figure for US), Russian GDP was $1.4T; the ruble has lost 30% of its value. If we take that to be a 10% contraction, $140B/$100k = 1.4M QALY lost; if 80 QALY = 1 life, then 17.5k lives lost.

Hauke Hillebrandt

Edit: re: downvotes for OP: to clarify, I support the downvotes and don't endorse the premise of the question - damage to the Russian economy and its indirect health effects are not the dominant consideration here. Because Ukraine will suffer much more, the question's premise is naive and insensitive. I tried to answer this because I wanted to show how much harm Putin inflicted on Russia by starting this war indirectly and which might outweigh the direct casualties on the Russian side.

Countries usually value a QALY at 1-3x their GDP.

But also, GDP reduction and QALYs might not commensurable in that way...

I have a more detailed note on diminishing returns here. In brief, according to the law of logarithmic utility—a simple rule of thumb is that a dollar is worth 1/X times as much if you are X times richer. So doubling someone's income is worth the same amount no matter where they start. If GDP per capita is $10k, a $1 reduction is 10x less bad as at $1k mark. In other words, people will probably rather give up money than health on that current margin.

But there are ways to calculate this and it's probably gonna be bad...

One Lancet study suggests that the 2008 economic crisis caused 0.5 million excess cancer-related deaths worldwide. This is just cancer, which is about 15% of global mortality and so a naive extrapolation might suggest mortality figures in the millions. There are 50m deaths per year globally, so maybe there was a 10% increase.

Russia has about 2m deaths per year.

GDP loss is projected to be similar to 2008 or Covid.

https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673618314855

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0140673618314855-mmc1.pdf

Austin

Thank you for taking the time to write this response!

I'm not exactly sure what premise downvoters are reading from my question. To be clear, I think the war is a horrible idea and it's important to punish defection in a negative-sum way (aka impose sanctions on countries in violation of international laws).

The main point I wanted to entertain was: it's sad when we have to impose sanctions on countries; lots of people will suffer. In the same way it's sad when a war is fought, and lots of people suffer. We should be careful not to treat economic punishment as qualitatively different or intrinsically superior to direct violence; its a question of how much net utility different responses produce for the world.

Hauke Hillebrandt

Thanks for clarifying - fwiw I didn't think you're ill-intentioned... and at its core your question re: innocent Russians suffering due to sanctions is a valid one - as you say, all suffering counts equally independent of who suffers (and Russians will definitely suffer much more so than most people who are living a relatively affluent life in the west). But because Ukrainians are currently disproportionately suffering much more than Russian, the question might have struck some people as tone-deaf or inappropriate. Even taking aside the terrible direct humanitarian impact of the war, just consider Russia's GDP per capita being $10k, while Ukraine's being $3k before the war and it'll have a much bigger hit to the economy.

Comments

More from the author

Podcast: Austin and Oli on funding & incubating projects

Austin·1w ago·50m read

Sixteen schemes for AI safety

Austin·1mo ago·10m read

Surplus: for massive public good

Austin·3w ago·4m read

Curated and popular this week

Cultivating hope: calibrating the expectations for cultivated meat to end factory farming

PabloAMC 🔸·1w ago·Curated 2d ago·22m read

GWWC's 2025 impact evaluation (executive summary)

Aidan Whitfield🔸, Giving What We Can🔸·4d ago·2m read

This post presents the executive summary from Giving What We Can’s impact evaluation for 2025. At the end of this post we share links to more information, including the full report and...

Maybe do the thing you wish CEA would do

alejoacelas 🔸·1d ago·2m read

I used AI to fix transcription errors, rerrarange the ideas, and suggest tweaks to the title and some sentences. Three of the most exciting projects to come out of EA in recent years are, in a vague sense, CEA spinouts: * Kairos is directly a spinout of CEA and now handles most support for university AI safety groups. Basically everyone I've found who knows them is really excited about what they do * NEST is an opinionated ideas-fi...

Recent opportunities to take action

RP is looking for project founders in neglected animal areas

Rethink Priorities·2d ago·7m read

158

Possible mistake EAs are making and shout out to Pause AI UK

Michelle_Hutchinson·1w ago·4m read

Announcing the Safe Pareto Improvements (SPI) Fundamentals Program

Center on Long-Term Risk, Anthony DiGiovanni 🔸, Santeri T 🔹·1d ago·3m read

Austin

Community

Some reflections on the Manifest 2024 discourse:

I’m annoyed (with “the community”, but mostly with human nature & myself) that this kind of drama gets so much more attention than eg typical reviews of the Manifest experience, or our retrospectives of work on Manifund, which I wish got even 10% of this engagement. It's fun to be self-righteous on the internet, fun to converse with many people who I respect, fun especially when they come to your defense (thanks!), but I feel guilty at the amount of attention this has sucked up for everyone involved.

This bit from Paul Graham makes a lot more sense to me now:

> When someone contradicts you, they're in a sense attacking you. Sometimes pretty overtly. Your instinct when attacked is to defend yourself. But like a lot of instincts, this one wasn't designed for the world we now live in. Counterintuitive as it feels, it's better most of the time not to defend yourself. Otherwise these people are literally taking your life.

Kudos to all y'all who are practicing the virtue of silence and avoiding engaging with this.
While it could have been much, much better written, on net I’m glad the Guardian article exists. And not just in a "all PR is good PR" sense, or even a “weak opponents are superweapons” sense; I think there's a legitimate concern there that's worthy of reporting. I like the idea of inviting the journalists to come to Manifest in the future.
That said, I am quite annoyed that now many people who didn’t attend Manifest, may think of it as "Edgelordcon". I once again encourage people who weren't there to look at our actual schedule, or to skim over some of the many many post-Manifest reports, to get a more representative sense of what Manifest is like or about.
If Edgelordcon is what you really wanted, consider going to something like Hereticon instead of Manifest, thanks.
Not sure how many people already know this but I formally left Manifold a couple months ago. I'm the most comfortable writing publicly out of the 3 founders, but while I'm still on the company board, I expect Manifold vs my own views to diverge more over time.
Also, Rachel and Saul were much more instrumental in making Manifest 2024 happen than me. Their roles were approximately co-directors, while I'm more like a producer of the event. So most of the credit for a well-run event goes to them; I wish more people engaged with their considerations, rather than mine. (Blame for the invites, as I mentioned, falls on me.)
EA Forum is actually pretty good for having nuanced discussion: the threading and upvote vs agreevote and reactions all help compared to other online discourse. Kudos to the team! (Online text-based discourse does remain intrinsically more divisive than offline, though, which I don't love. I wish more people eg took up Saul on his offer to call with folks.)
Overall my impression of the state of the EA community has ticked upwards as a result of this all this. I’m glad to be here!
Some of my favorite notes amidst all this: Isa, huw, TracingWoodgrains, and Nathan Young on their experiences, Richard Ngo against deplatforming, Jacob and Oli on their thoughts, Bentham's Bulldog and Theo Jaffee on their defenses of the event, and Saul and Rachel on their perspectives as organizers.

^{^}

and i would explicitly encourage you, dear reader, to do so! please! i would like to talk to you much more than i would like to read your comment on the EA forum, and way more than i'd like to read your twitter post! i would very much like to adjust my decision-making process to be better, and insofar as you think that's good, please do so through a medium that's much higher bandwidth!