If you're new to the EA Forum, consider using this thread to introduce yourself! 

You could talk about how you found effective altruism, what causes you work on and care about, or personal details that aren't EA-related at all. 

(You can also put this info into your Forum bio.)


If you have something to share that doesn't feel like a full post, add it here! 

(You can also create a Shortform post.)

 


Open threads are also a place to share good news, big or small. See this post for ideas.

11

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments15


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Hello! I’ve been around EA since 2019! I was trying to choose a thesis topic and stumbled across Effective Thesis, which led to 80,000 hours, which led to hanging out a little with the Beijing chapter… you get the picture. Things have escalated since then (in a good way, ha!) and now I’m making a formal account here. 

I just started as the Research Coordinator at EA for Christians, where I support community building and research around the intersection of Christian theology and EA. I’ll be starting my Master of Divinity in NYC this September. (MDiv’s are typical degrees for priests/pastors, seminary professors, etc.) If you are interested in EA and theology/religion/spirituality, happy to talk!

But I do other stuff besides religion. I was a Yenching Scholar at Peking University and focused on Law & Society, writing my master’s thesis on international data law. I’m focused on institutional decision-making, great power conflict, US-China relations, theology, and research. Yet, I’m eclectic. So, interested in almost everything. 

Looking forward to engaging in discussions!

Welcome Caleb!

Welcome, Caleb! I'm always excited to see people with unusual specialties on the Forum; every bit of expertise matters.

Hi!

My main personal project for the summer is trying to figure out what I think about AI-risk, so I thought I should engage with the forum more to ask questions/solicit feedback. I'm currently a mathematics undergrad, about to start my 4th year, so part of this is trying to figure out whether or not I should pivot toward working in something closer to AI-risk. 

About me -- I first got interested in EA after reading Reasons and Persons in the summer of 2020. My main secondary academic interest in undergrad has been in political theory, so I'm very interested in questions such as whether naïve utilitarianism endorses political extremism, how that might be mitigated by a proper social epistemology, and what that might entail for consequentialists interested in voting/political process reform. I'm also very interested in the economics of cities and innovation, as well as understanding how we learn mathematics. I'm less sure how those topics fit in an EA framework, but I'm always interested in seeing what insights others might be able to bring to them from an EA standpoint. 

Here's hoping to learning a lot from y'all's!

-- Edgar

Two articles that you might find helpful:

AGI Safety from First Principles by richard_ngo
My Personal Cruxes for Working on AGI Safety by Buck
 

The former is an argument for why AGI Safety is potentially a really big problem (maybe biggest problem of our lifetimes), and the latter is stepping into the internal thought processes of an individual trying to decide whether to work on AGI safety over other important longtermist causes.

Great to meet you! You might be interested in some posts in the AI forecasting and Estimation of existential risk categories, such as:

I've also written a lot about AI risk on my shortform.

Hi,

I am about 2-3 months old into knowing EA. I was going through the bio of a professor who impressed me in a virtual lecture and her bio stated that she had pledged a part of her income to EA. That's where I first stumbled upon the name 'Effective Altruism' and it caught my attention immediately. The name says a lot. Thus, one thing led to the other as I continued browsing and reading about it, and here I am today.

Not knowing what I would do after my undergraduate studies, I knew one thing, I wanted to be able to help others as part of my profession. This led me to get my post-graduation degree in social work. I continued working in a variety of areas from human trafficking, children with intellectual disability, community development, counseling, capacity building of counselors,  school social work, designing and carrying out researches in different areas, and teaching research methodology to post-grad students.

Thereafter I took a long break in my career and long story short, here I am trying to find my way back. For the past year, I have been educating myself through various online courses in computational social science, research methods, data, and development policy. Childhood poverty is one of the areas where I am keenly interested in working.  Reading about EA brought my focus to concerns of farmed animal welfare part of which were there at the back of my mind but, thanks to EA work, got to the fore now.  I also got to know a lot about longtermism issues that I didn't know much about earlier.

I am looking forward to interacting with members here and learn a lot. I am open to discussions, volunteering or assisting/liaison with anyone on interesting EA-related projects.

 

Thanks,

Naghma

Welcome Naghma! It is great to have you here and learn about your background and interests.

A belated welcome, Naghma! 

A couple of recommendations for learning more:

  • Join the EA Newsletter to get regular updates on different causes, events, etc.
  • Browse through the EA Intro Program, a collection of articles on different topics that were selected for being among the best we have. It's a lot of material, but I'd recommend skipping around to whatever looks interesting.

And if you're ever looking for something to read on a specific topic, open threads are a great place to ask about that.

Hi, 

having been passionate about the bigger picture for many years I discovered EA maybe five years ago.  I attended a handful of events in Manchester and I was curious why something like Positive Psychology etc was not a core part of EA.  After all, many of humanities problems are caused by humanity and can only be solved by humanity.  

Six months ago I started work creating what I hope will be a global platform, there is a brief intro at potentialisation.com, to help people understand themselves and others better, learn and grow using that understanding and connect with other people more effectively - whether it be people round the corner to create a craft group because they are lonely or to connect with other would be global solution architects and supporters from around the globe that they have synergy with :-)

Hopefully the system help a few people be better in ways that give humanity a bit more chance of navigating the next few decades more successfully, or at the least be a bit less miserable as we head toward self destruction :-)  

thanks,

jon

Best of luck with the project. It looks like there's a lot of different material in the works; I hope that whatever first tool you launch has clear benefits for the people who use it, and you can build out from an initial success.

I struggled for a long time to fit forum content into my workflow, but have found something that works well for me:

  • I use feedbin as a space for long form content.
  • I subscribe to newsletters and the forum's digest using the feedbin email
  • Reading forum articles fits as an activity kind of like scrolling through twitter.

Is it still possible to create an event page on the forum?

Not right now. That feature popped up for a time but wasn't meant to be usable yet — this was just an inadvertent consequence of the code we share with LessWrong. 

However, getting the feature imported in a usable way is on our near-term roadmap! We don't have a specific launch date yet, but event pages are under active development. I wouldn't be surprised if they were in our next feature update post.

Thanks for letting me know! I'm interested in organizing an event soon, so this feature would be useful to me.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig