Hide table of contents

EA books give a much more thorough description of what EA is about than a short conversation, and I think it's great that EA events (ex: the dinners we host here in Boston) often have ones like Doing Good Better, The Precipice, or 80,000 Hours available. Since few people read quickly enough that they'll sit down and make it through a book during the event, or want to spend their time at the event reading in a corner, the books make sense if people leave with them. This gives organizers ~3 options: sell, lend, or give.

Very few people will be up for buying a book in a situation like this, so most EA groups end up with either lending or giving. I have the impression that giving is more common, but I think lending is generally a lot better:

  • A loan suggests that when you're done reading the book you've considered the ideas and don't need the book anymore. Giving suggests it's more like doctrine you keep and reference.

  • You don't get back all the books you lend, and that's ok, but in my experience we do get most of them back. Lending out the same book over and over is a lot cheaper than buying a new book each time. Giving books is (and looks) unnecessarily lavish.

  • Returning the book offers a chance to talk about reactions.

Lending out books doesn't mean you need to run it like a library, with records and late fees. We've put the books out with stickies saying "borrow this book", they go out, and they mostly come back again.

Comment via: facebook, mastodon

47

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments10


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

If someone gives me a book, I feel like I have no deadline for reading it. Which sometimes means I never read it. If it's a loan, it's more likely I'll read it at all.

The flipside of this dynamic is that I'm unlikely to accept a book if I don't think I'm likely to read it, or if I'm interested in reading it, but know that I won't have time for a while.

Also, lending is somewhat of a commitment mechanism: if someone gets or buys a book, they have forever which can easily mean it takes forever, but if they borrow it there's time pressure to give it back which means either read it soon or lose it.

Given that Jeff posted this shortly after raising the possibility that he should write a book (of the sort that could easily make it onto many lending/giving tables) -- I admire the post against potential self-interest here.

I like this idea. At our university clubs day tabling event, we gave quite a few books away and not a single person who took a book ended up coming to one of our meetings. I think lending would probably be a better practise since, as you say, it is an invitation to talk more about what the person thought of the book. 

One potential issue with loaning versus giving is that loaning confers upon the recipient the additional burden of seeking out the lendor for return of the item. Further, some may be concerned they'll misplace the item. Thus, some conscientious people may abstain from borrowing even if the message might resonate with them. Lending may make more sense if you're confident (and the prospective lendee is confident) that you'll see them again in the near future.

It might make sense to minimize the concerns by just giving the book to someone who might be interested. You could request that they convey it to someone who might appreciate it after they've finished it.

the additional burden of seeking out the lendor for return of the item

That could be a plus. If you're running a local group, and lend books at some public event, (like tabling), then this will incentivise the takers to attend the next local EA event too, where they can bring the books back.

Alternate idea: "loan" the books by asking people to pass them on to someone else when they are done reading them (e.g. to a friend, to a Little Free Library, etc.)

Thats the same pitch you would do with giving them for free.

Despite being an example of "giving is more common" I broadly agree with this post.

I'd conceptualize it as a spectrum, with "Giving books - no strings attached" at one end and "Loaning with a register and stated return timeframe" at the other end. As with most spectrums the healthy spot is likely the middle and context dependent. 

For our tabling we ended up giving the books to people who had initiated a display of interest, with a conversation with the recipient about reading it and then passing it on to someone else who would read it. Which allows for sharing of the ideas, even if people weren't able to make it to our events in the future. For people who are already regular attendees, or are likely to become them, I'd advocate for closer to the loan end of the spectrum.

I like the idea of thinking of this as a spectrum! When I've done tabling, however, (only a little, when I was at Google) I still found loaning worthwhile: since we're all regularly coming to the same campus returning things wasn't that hard. And if someone had acted like they didn't think they'd be able to return it I'd have told them not to stress about it and to pass it on to someone else when they were done.

(Not trying to pick on you or your group! And you're better placed to figure out what's working for you.)

Curated and popular this week
 ยท  ยท 10m read
 ยท 
I wrote this to try to explain the key thing going on with AI right now to a broader audience. Feedback welcome. Most people think of AI as a pattern-matching chatbot โ€“ good at writing emails, terrible at real thinking. They've missed something huge. In 2024, while many declared AI was reaching a plateau, it was actually entering a new paradigm: learning to reason using reinforcement learning. This approach isnโ€™t limited by data, so could deliver beyond-human capabilities in coding and scientific reasoning within two years. Here's a simple introduction to how it works, and why it's the most important development that most people have missed. The new paradigm: reinforcement learning People sometimes say โ€œchatGPT is just next token prediction on the internetโ€. But thatโ€™s never been quite true. Raw next token prediction produces outputs that are regularly crazy. GPT only became useful with the addition of whatโ€™s called โ€œreinforcement learning from human feedbackโ€ (RLHF): 1. The model produces outputs 2. Humans rate those outputs for helpfulness 3. The model is adjusted in a way expected to get a higher rating A model thatโ€™s under RLHF hasnโ€™t been trained only to predict next tokens, itโ€™s been trained to produce whatever output is most helpful to human raters. Think of the initial large language model (LLM) as containing a foundation of knowledge and concepts. Reinforcement learning is what enables that structure to be turned to a specific end. Now AI companies are using reinforcement learning in a powerful new way โ€“ training models to reason step-by-step: 1. Show the model a problem like a math puzzle. 2. Ask it to produce a chain of reasoning to solve the problem (โ€œchain of thoughtโ€).[1] 3. If the answer is correct, adjust the model to be more like that (โ€œreinforcementโ€).[2] 4. Repeat thousands of times. Before 2023 this didnโ€™t seem to work. If each step of reasoning is too unreliable, then the chains quickly go wrong. Without getting close to co
 ยท  ยท 1m read
 ยท 
Jamesร–z
 ยท  ยท 3m read
 ยท 
Why itโ€™s important to fill out this consultation The UK Government is currently consulting on allowing insects to be fed to chickens and pigs. This is worrying as the government explicitly says changes would โ€œenable investment in the insect protein sectorโ€. Given the likely sentience of insects (see this summary of recent research), and that median predictions estimate that 3.9 trillion insects will be killed annually by 2030, we think itโ€™s crucial to try to limit this huge source of animal suffering.  Overview * Link to complete the consultation: HERE. You can see the context of the consultation here. * How long it takes to fill it out: 5-10 minutes (5 questions total with only 1 of them requiring a written answer) * Deadline to respond: April 1st 2025 * What else you can do: Share the consultation document far and wide!  * You can use the UK Voters for Animals GPT to help draft your responses. * If you want to hear about other high-impact ways to use your political voice to help animals, sign up for the UK Voters for Animals newsletter. There is an option to be contacted only for very time-sensitive opportunities like this one, which we expect will happen less than 6 times a year. See guidance on submitting in a Google Doc Questions and suggested responses: It is helpful to have a lot of variation between responses. ๏ปฟAs such, please feel free to add your own reasoning for your responses or, in addition to animal welfare reasons for opposing insects as feed, include non-animal welfare reasons e.g., health implications, concerns about farming intensification, or the climate implications of using insects for feed.    Question 7 on the consultation: Do you agree with allowing poultry processed animal protein in porcine feed?  Suggested response: No (up to you if you want to elaborate further).  We think itโ€™s useful to say no to all questions in the consultation, particularly as changing these rules means that meat producers can make more profit from sel