Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
iporphyry5
0
0

I have some serious issues with the way the information here is presented which make me think that this is best shared as something other than an EA forum post. My main issues are:

  1. This announcement is in large part a promotion for the Fistula Foundation, with advertising-esque language. It would be appropriate in an advertising banner of an EA-aligned site but not on the forum, where critical discussion or direct information-sharing is the norm.
  2. It includes the phrase that Fistula Foundation is "widely regarded as one of the most effective charities in the world" (in addition to some other similar phrases). This is weaselly language which should not be used without immediate justification (e.g. "...according to X rating").
  3. In this case this is also misleading/false. I went to the EA impact assessment page for the foundation and it is actually estimated to be below the cost-effectiveness range of EA programs (while it seems to be considered a reasonable charity).

In general the language here together with the fact that the OP is affiliated with this foundation makes me update to take the fistula foundation much less seriously and to avoid donating there in the future. I would suggest for the OP to remove this post or to edit it in a way that is informative rather than pandering (e.g. something like "join me to go skinny-dipping for fistula foundation on X day. While it has a mediocre impact assessment, I like the cause and think skinny dipping would be a good way to support it while also becoming less insecure about our bodies").

Reply
4
gogreatergood
1. I  am using the same language here, that I present this project to the media and to others with. I thought this would be beneficial. You are seeing the same thing that the general public sees. Except (I hope) with a lot of background info and links to explain my thinking.   2. My language in that is not weaselly because it links to a page that shows exactly what I'm stating. It's indeed, widely regarded, as one of the most effective charities in the world. By (as the linked page shows) The Life You Can Save; CharityWatch; Great Nonprofits; GuideStar; Charity Navigator.  Do you have any evidence that Fistula Foundation is NOT widely regarded to be one of the most effective charities in the world? Maybe you don't think it is one of the most effective? But it's widely regarded to be, and by some prominent and well-regarded third parties.   3. Your link here is exactly my same link that I put; I think you missed that. Yes I agree, that it may not be an upper elite ranked charity. And that's why I linked to the same page. However, within this link that we both posted, they do state: "We think that Fistula Foundation may be in the range of cost-effectiveness of our current top charities. However, this estimate is highly uncertain for a number of reasons." It seems to be well within a good range of high effectiveness. But if you are a stickler for elite effectiveness only, a great case can be made for that, to NOT donate to them, and fair enough. We seem in general agreement here. I'm not sure what I'm stating that's false. It did not make the GiveWell cut after they looked into them. I agree.   + I am in no way whatsoever affiliated with Fistula Foundation. Why do you think so? If you are going to donate less to them in the future, based just on the wording of this post from a random person you don't know, and not based on the evidence of the work that they do, I'm not sure your reasoning on that. + I do hope you join me in skinny dipping on t
7
Amber Dawn
fwiw I disagree with this. People often 'advertize' or argue for things on the Forum - e.g. promoting some new EA project, saying 'come work for us at X org!', or arguing strongly that certain cause areas should be considered. The main difference with this post is that the language is more 'advertizing-esque' than normal - but this seems to me an aesthetic consideration. I'm not sure what would be gained by OP rewriting it with more caveats.  Re "one of the most effective charities", OP does immediately justify this in the bullet points below - it's recommended by The Life You Can Save, and Givewell says it 'may be in the range of cost-effectiveness of our top charities'. 
gogreatergood3
0
0

Thank you Amber !

Reply
See in context
by gogreatergood
2 min read 5

-20

Building effective altruismGlobal health & developmentEffective altruism in the mediaEffective altruism messaging
Frontpage

July 9, 2022 is International Skinny Dip Day.

Join us (skinnydipday.org) as we 

  1. EXPERIENCE and grow our own body positivity and self/other acceptance.
  2. CURE women who have had their bodies injured and shamed (via Fistula Foundation).
International Skinny Dip Day

Fistula Foundation 

...is widely regarded as one of the most effective charities in the world. 

 

Skinny Dip Day 

...is an established (yet scattered / underutilized) concept:

 

🌊 Dippin’ — On a Mission 🌊

We are growing — and we hope you will ride the wave with us?

2019: $871 raised across 3 locations
2021: $5275 raised across 8 locations (6x increase)
2022: 14 locations (and counting) signed up so far.

2021 Results

 

QUESTIONS:

  1. Are publicity stunt style events (which are not explicitly linked to EA; and which are not overly dangerous etc) an effective method at highlighting effective giving, and EA in general?

     
  2. Is Fistula Foundation a good "gateway drug" to effective giving, and EA in general?
  • pulls at heart strings
  • easy to understand quickly
    • Fistula Foundation clearly CURES and EMPOWERS specific people for every x amount of money you raise for them. And builds up local health infrastructure.
    • In contrast to, for example, GiveWell's first listed charity, Malaria Consortium, which gives chemo drugs to children in order to prevent some of them from dying in the future from a disease not many in the developed world are even familiar with. (I'm sure it's all well and good; however many questions arise from the average non-EA and veteran EA alike.)
       

 

3. Will you skinny dip (at an event or on your own) and/or donate to support the project? 🌊 😊 🌊
 

-20

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments5


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
iporphyry5
0
0

I have some serious issues with the way the information here is presented which make me think that this is best shared as something other than an EA forum post. My main issues are:

  1. This announcement is in large part a promotion for the Fistula Foundation, with advertising-esque language. It would be appropriate in an advertising banner of an EA-aligned site but not on the forum, where critical discussion or direct information-sharing is the norm.
  2. It includes the phrase that Fistula Foundation is "widely regarded as one of the most effective charities in the world" (in addition to some other similar phrases). This is weaselly language which should not be used without immediate justification (e.g. "...according to X rating").
  3. In this case this is also misleading/false. I went to the EA impact assessment page for the foundation and it is actually estimated to be below the cost-effectiveness range of EA programs (while it seems to be considered a reasonable charity).

In general the language here together with the fact that the OP is affiliated with this foundation makes me update to take the fistula foundation much less seriously and to avoid donating there in the future. I would suggest for the OP to remove this post or to edit it in a way that is informative rather than pandering (e.g. something like "join me to go skinny-dipping for fistula foundation on X day. While it has a mediocre impact assessment, I like the cause and think skinny dipping would be a good way to support it while also becoming less insecure about our bodies").

Reply
Amber Dawn7
0
0

fwiw I disagree with this. People often 'advertize' or argue for things on the Forum - e.g. promoting some new EA project, saying 'come work for us at X org!', or arguing strongly that certain cause areas should be considered. The main difference with this post is that the language is more 'advertizing-esque' than normal - but this seems to me an aesthetic consideration. I'm not sure what would be gained by OP rewriting it with more caveats. 

Re "one of the most effective charities", OP does immediately justify this in the bullet points below - it's recommended by The Life You Can Save, and Givewell says it 'may be in the range of cost-effectiveness of our top charities'. 

Reply
gogreatergood3
0
0

Thank you Amber !

Reply
gogreatergood4
0
0
  1. I  am using the same language here, that I present this project to the media and to others with. I thought this would be beneficial. You are seeing the same thing that the general public sees. Except (I hope) with a lot of background info and links to explain my thinking.
     
  2. My language in that is not weaselly because it links to a page that shows exactly what I'm stating. It's indeed, widely regarded, as one of the most effective charities in the world. By (as the linked page shows) The Life You Can Save; CharityWatch; Great Nonprofits; GuideStar; Charity Navigator. 

    Do you have any evidence that Fistula Foundation is NOT widely regarded to be one of the most effective charities in the world? Maybe you don't think it is one of the most effective? But it's widely regarded to be, and by some prominent and well-regarded third parties.
     
  3. Your link here is exactly my same link that I put; I think you missed that. Yes I agree, that it may not be an upper elite ranked charity. And that's why I linked to the same page. However, within this link that we both posted, they do state: "We think that Fistula Foundation may be in the range of cost-effectiveness of our current top charities. However, this estimate is highly uncertain for a number of reasons." It seems to be well within a good range of high effectiveness. But if you are a stickler for elite effectiveness only, a great case can be made for that, to NOT donate to them, and fair enough. We seem in general agreement here. I'm not sure what I'm stating that's false. It did not make the GiveWell cut after they looked into them. I agree.
     

+ I am in no way whatsoever affiliated with Fistula Foundation. Why do you think so? If you are going to donate less to them in the future, based just on the wording of this post from a random person you don't know, and not based on the evidence of the work that they do, I'm not sure your reasoning on that.

+ I do hope you join me in skinny dipping on this day. I'm not sure why it's 'pandering' for me to say that. However, if you don't want to, that's all good too!

Thank you for writing back your thoughts. Helps me to get the idea of why I am getting downvotes. I do hope to get some feedback on the project itself outside of the wording, if anyone has any ! Thank you again!

Reply
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
6
12 Weeks to Feel Better & Do More Good
2 authors
· · 3m read
0
0
8
Suvita is hiring Technology Specialist/Senior Software Engineer
Vinoj
· · 5m read
0
0
11
Aligning SDG and EA through effective SDG
alexis schoenlaub
· · 4m read
1
1
View more