Comments
More from the author
Curated and popular this week
A preliminary estimate, and a request for better ones.
Summary
I believe the standard literature estimates for the number of DALYs attributable to a case of stunting are too low, largely because they don’t account for the long term effects. This means that childhood nutritional interventions that reduce the prevalence of stunting may be substantially more cost-effective than previously believed.
Epistemic status
Exploratory and back-o...
81
I’ve been feeling pretty shaken since the METR report about the Hugging Face incident came out last week. Over the weekend, I wrote up some thoughts on how lonely the AI situation sometimes feels to me. It’s more personal than what I’d usually share publicly, but I thought I’d post it here in case it resonates with anyone else.
I’m very grateful to the man...
78
TL;DR: Kairos has raised $50 million from Coefficient Giving for two years of funding, one of the largest commitments they’ve made towards AI safety fieldbuilding to date. We’re using this to make an ambitious push for growing Kairos, broadening our portfolio of talent infrastructure projects and incubating new organizations. We’ve doubled in size in the last six mon...
Recent opportunities to take action
[More detail for question]
I am updating GWWC's page on Myths about Aid and Charity and hope to address common questions or misconceptions a newcomer to EA might have. These may be fueled by biased mainstream portrayals of certain cause areas (e.g. "overspending" on foreign aid) or just a different set of priors coming into EA (e.g. people near me need the money more).
In particular, I am looking to crowdsource ideas on common myths and misconceptions that people may have come across in regards to giving to EA-oriented animal welfare and long-termist organizations. For instance, "the state of the world in 100 years does not affect me so I don't need to give to long-term causes."
Another one that plausibly applies to aid/charity within the global poverty field is that many donors under-estimate the difference in effectiveness between interventions relative to experts. (Caviola et al, 2020)
For animal suffering:
*There is some truth to this statement, especially regarding the past, and the answer should candidly acknowledge this. (There may also be some truth to some of the other statements, but I thought this one was especially worth highlighting.)
I do have a question for you. On GWWC's "Best Charities to Donate to in 2020" page, under the "Give together, as a community" section, GWWC omits ACE Movement Grants. Is this intentional, and if so, can you publicly state GWWC's reasoning?
Hi RandomEA,
That section of the website discusses why a fund can be a good option and then lists the funds that are available on EA Funds (the four EA Funds plus the Regranting organisations listed on EA Funds, minus CEA's Community Building Grants as we felt that was less targeted towards a general public audience that would typically visit that page).
Hope that helps to clarify.
Best,
Luke
Thanks Luke. Do you know why EA Funds excludes ACE Movement Grants? There is substantial overlap between the recipients of ACE Movement Grants and the recipients of EA Animal Welfare Fund grants, which is why I wanted clarification that exclusion is not meant to imply anything negative about ACE Movement Grants.