Hide table of contents

I think this is an important question.

1. Can any factions, dynamics, tendencies, individuals be thought of as "protagonists" from an EA perspective?

2. Could you make this determination in real time?

3. What factions, dynamics, tendencies, individuals were missing? 

Feel free to assume that you'd start from some privilege (can read and write, mostly), if you want to factor out a heroic rags to riches prologue. 

10

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


2 Answers sorted by

Gwern argues here against supporting the American revolution.

It's worth noting that a large part of the argument there (but far from all of it) would not apply to this question unless you were in such an influential position that you could have a meaningful effect on whether or not the war took place at all.

So I read Gwern and I also read this Dylan Matthews piece, I'm fairly convinced the revolution did not lead to the best outcomes for slaves and for indigenous people. I think there are two cruxes for believing that it would be possible to make this determination in real-time: 

  1. as Matthews points out, follow the preferences of slaves.
  2. notice that a complaint in the declaration of independence was that the british wanted to citizenize indigenous people. 

One of my core assumptions, which is up for debate, is that EAs ought to focus on outcomes for sla... (read more)

My first guess, based on the knowledge I have, is that the abolitionist faction was good, and that supporting them would be necessary for an EA in that time (but maybe not sufficient). Additionally, my guess is that I'd be able to determine this in real time. 

More from quinn
58
quinn
· · 8m read
62
quinn
· · 8m read
Curated and popular this week
calebp
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
The LTFF recently switched to doing grant rounds, our first round closes on Saturday  (deadline EOD anywhere 2025-Feb-15).  I think you should consider submitting a quick application in the next 24 hours. We will likely consider applications submitted over the next few days in this round (unless we are overwhelmed with applications). Apply now In my personal view, I don't think there has been a better time to work on AI safety projects than right now. There is a clear-ish set of priorities, funders willing to pay for projects, and an increasing sense from the AI safety community that we might be close to the critical window for ensuring AI systems have a profoundly positive effect on society.[1]   I am particularly keen to see applications on: * publicly communicating AI threat models and other societal implications * securing AI systems in ways I don't expect to be done by default in labs * getting useful safety research out of AI systems when the AI is powerful and scheming against you * analysis of AI safety research agendas that might be especially good candidates for AIs (e.g. because they can be easily decomposed into subquestions that are easily checkable) * new organisations that could use seed funding * gatherings of various sizes and stakeholders for navigating the transition to powerful AI systems * neglected technical AI governance research and fieldbuilding programs * career transition grants for anyone thinking of the above * areas that Open Philanthropy recently divested from   Other LTFF fund managers are excited about other areas and an area not being included in the list above is not a strong indicator that we aren't excited about it.  You can apply to the round here (deadline EOD anywhere 2025-Feb-15).     1. ^ we are also interested in funding other longtermist areas, though empirically they meet our bar much less often than AI safety areas.
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
Summary Kidney stones cause an immense amount of suffering worldwide. Weighted by their intensity, and depending on some assumptions, we posit that kidney stones may account for a large fraction of human suffering worldwide.[1] Finding cost-effective solutions for this hedonic catastrophe should be a very high priority in any suffering-focused research agenda. While researching kidney stone pain, we were very impressed with the online reports of patients using chanca piedra (Phyllanthus niruri) to treat their pain and prevent the formation of stones, so we decided to take a closer look. Given the limited number of high-quality studies on the efficacy of chanca piedra, we decided to look for additional evidence online and collected thousands of WebMD, Amazon, and Reddit reviews about chanca piedra and other kidney stone treatments, and classified them along a few dozen different dimensions (such as reported side effects, reported pain reduction, etc.). While we acknowledge that internet reviews are not usually a reliable source of information concerning medical matters, we also make the case that the reviews of chanca piedra in particular should not be dismissed out of hand. In particular, we find that chanca piedra: 1. Is effective for an exceptionally high percentage of people, judging by both the star ratings and review contents. 2. Has an exceptionally low rate of reported side effects. 3. Has high-quality reviews, judged by criteria such as providing adequate context and believable narratives consistent with kidney stone experiences. 4. Is supported by reviews that are equally very positive across WebMD, Amazon, and Reddit. 5. Compares very favorably to the WebMD reviews of standard prescription medications for kidney stones, including: tamsulosin (aka Flomax), allopurinol, potassium citrate, and hydrochlorothiazide. 6. Has a far lower rate of reported side effects and a higher rate of effectiveness than melatonin and ashwagandha, two widely used over-t
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
How to explain Effective Altruism to someone who’s never heard of it—and make them interested? A few months ago, I was given the opportunity to give a TEDx talk about Effective Altruism. As a former community manager of EA Israel, I’ve spent years explaining EA to newcomers, refining how I communicate its principles, and observing the common misconceptions that make it harder for people to engage with EA ideas. Preparing for the talk forced me to organize my thoughts on what works—and what doesn’t—when I try to convey EA to a broader audience. I would love to discuss with you some of the choices I made when I wrote this talk, and hear your thoughts about them. Note: I don’t read the forum often, so the writing might not be in the usual style of the forum. I use many anecdotes, personal stories, and my views. However, hopefully, these ideas could start a conversation I think is important about EA communication and community outreach in general, and I hope that they could spike that conversation. 1. Generic Examples → Shared personal stories Like many people, my first experience with social impact was purely driven by passion, and not by calculations of effectiveness. In the talk, I chose to describe this experience. It went something like this: > “When I was 14, I found out my friend was harming herself. It shook me. I wanted to help her, and other people that suffered. > > So I did what felt right—I launched a mental health campaign to reduce self-harm among teenagers. > > And, to my surprise, it worked- we received thousands of followers, interviews on TV, and hundreds of messages from people saying how much it helped them. It felt like a success.  > > Until one day, another friend told me:  > > “Your campaign gave me the idea to hurt myself.” > > She said she had already been struggling with anxiety and depression. But self-harm wasn’t something she’d considered— until she came across our campaign. > > It crushed me.  > > I had tried to do good in th