Reading articles is too damned easy. It's a click away. And there's so much knowledge jam-packed into articles, that it's got to be the best way to learn, right?

The one downside of articles is that they're dumb. As in, they're a piece of paper, or pixels on a screen, and they can't talk to you, get to know you, figure out what you need to know right now, and emphasize it appropriately. The way we choose articles, via classroom assignments or Google search results, is slightly better personalized.

And there's vastly more out there to read than you can ever achieve, too much you could be doing, so it's much more important to read and remember the right information than to absorb the most information.

Cultural transmission of knowledge is the secret to our success. And until we get that superintelligent friendly AI, the very smartest thing in the known universe is another human being.

What's so good about contacting the authors of articles you like and trying to build a relationship with them?

  1. Mutual understanding. Writings are, first and foremost, a way to understand the mind of another person. They might be right, wrong, or somewhere in between, but they show you how the author was thinking at the time. It also demonstrates that they wanted other people to know, primarily the people - like you! - who they expected to come across it. And they probably wanted to discuss it further. That's not always true, but it often is, and there is vastly more value for you and the world in assuming that they're excited to have a conversation and start exploring a relationship with you than assuming they don't.
  2. Tailored real-world help. They have the ability to carefully fit their recommendations to your interests. They can recommend not just articles, but bits of articles or broad concepts, as well as people you should talk to. They can show you how to do physical things. They can give you resources. They can make introductions. They can show you they care.
  3. Finding a team. When we collaborate, we get practice, we learn things, we show our skill, and we form relationships. Teamwork is both necessary for most forms of object-level work, and crucial for planning the next project. The success of a startup or a nonprofit isn't just about the value of the product or service, although that's very important. It's also about the quality of the team.
  4. Focus. The articles people publish, the books they write, and even the ones they reference or cite, give you a basis for a much more focused conversation with that person. Over the last few years, I've cold-emailed so many people that I've completely lost my fear. Before I do, I look up their web presence and read through at least part of their recent written output, which I use to decide who to talk to and what to talk about with them.
  5. Mutual aid. Relationships are, crucially, a chance to exchange information about each others' competencies, including on a social level, and also about our preferences and goals. And if we're both going around networking and building relationships, we can help each other network in the future, by making introductions. When somebody is willing to talk to you, they're expressing that they believe that the conversation is the most useful thing they could be doing with their time.
  6. Refining your reading list. In Scrum, you have to constantly refine your product backlog. Article-based conversations are a great way to refine your tsundoku. Since there's so much more to read than you ever possibly can, it's much more important to avoid reading unnecessary things than to read more. There's also more people out there than you can ever possibly meet, but tell me truly: is it conversations with new people, or article-reading, that you need more of in your life?

PM your favorite EA article authors and ask to talk about your ideas and aspirations. Write a post about who you are and what you're trying to do in your life. I did that here, and developed a wonderful and productive collaborative friendship with Vaidehi Agarwalla. Contact a teacher at a community college, or an administrator at a nonprofit, and ask them for an hour of their time to talk about the problems they face in their work.

Articles are invitations. Why aren't you accepting them more often?

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

In my experience, when I Facebook message or email EAs I have met in person, bringing up conversation topics I think are substantially higher value than the median topic we would probably wander into during casual chitchat at a party, my message is ignored a large fraction of the time. I don't think this is specific to EAs, I think people are just really flakey when it comes to responding to messages. But it is demoralizing and IMO it destroys a lot of the value of the EA network.

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe keep your expectations low for sending people cold emails and cold messages...

And err on the side of responding to messages that people do send you. It's quick & easy to reply and say something like "Sorry, I'm not interested", which increases the probability that the person will send you another message later that you are interested in later (as opposed to deciding that "it would be awkward/humiliating to message Person X again since they ignored my last message, so I will refrain from doing so even though this new message might be really important for them to read.")

Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to