I think eventually, working on changing the EA introductory program is important. I think it is an extremely good thing to do well, and I think it could be improved. I'm running a 6 week version right now, and I'll see if I feel the same way at the end.
I mostly shortened it, I think the main reasons I have are university level specific. I feel like there are a not insignificant number of people who would commit to a 6 week fellowship, but not 8, and there is not enough focus on the wider EA community; I feel like this should be more emphasized.
Crossposted to Less Wrong
‘Like most of life’s dangers, the dangers of artificial intelligence are not easily identified from the armchair.’
J Dmitri Gallow
Epistemic status
I’m not an expert in this field, and herein I make some sweeping generalisations educated guesses about the overall...
This post is part of the Rethink Priorities Cross-Cause Fund (CCF) series on how to allocate funding across causes when it is uncertain what matters most.
...
Note: This post was crossposted from Planned Obsolescence by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post.
Subtitle: If acceleration compounds, the naive extrapolation implies superintelligence within a year
This post discusses a public METR report on AI R&D acceler...
I think eventually, working on changing the EA introductory program is important. I think it is an extremely good thing to do well, and I think it could be improved. I'm running a 6 week version right now, and I'll see if I feel the same way at the end.
Why do you think changing it is important? In the version that you're running right now, did you just shorten it, or did you change anything else?
I mostly shortened it, I think the main reasons I have are university level specific. I feel like there are a not insignificant number of people who would commit to a 6 week fellowship, but not 8, and there is not enough focus on the wider EA community; I feel like this should be more emphasized.