Effective altruism often involves tackling complex global problems that require a deep understanding of the systems and dynamics at play.

This is where complexity science comes in. By studying complex systems and their behavior, complexity science can help effective altruists better understand the challenges they are trying to address, and identify the most effective interventions to make a positive difference.

For example, consider the problem of global poverty. This is a complex problem that involves a range of factors, including economic, political, and social issues. Using the tools of complexity science, effective altruists can model the different components of this problem and how they interact, and use that understanding to identify the most effective interventions to reduce poverty.

Complexity science can also help effective altruists anticipate the potential consequences of their actions. Because complex systems can be difficult to predict, it is important to have a good understanding of how they work in order to avoid unintended consequences. By using complexity science to model the potential impacts of different interventions, effective altruists can make more informed decisions and avoid making things worse.

In addition, complexity science can help effective altruists identify the most promising areas for intervention. Many complex systems, such as ecosystems and social networks, have a small number of key "leverage points" where a small change can have a big impact. By using complexity science to identify these leverage points, effective altruists can focus their efforts and resources on the interventions that are most likely to make a difference.

Overall, complexity science is an important tool for effective altruism, helping to provide a better understanding of complex global problems and identify the most effective interventions to address them. By incorporating complexity science into their decision-making process, effective altruists can make a greater positive impact on the world.

-21

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for your post, Nikiz! I don’t mean this to offend, but this post reads a very much like it was generated by GPT-3/ChatGPT.

If you indeed wrote this, I’d advise you to include much more clarification, examples, and precise recommendations.

Yes, the post is generated by ChatGPT.
It was my first attempt of such a post. I am curious how the community reacts to  articles like this. Would you generally say that text generated by ChatGPT would not add much value to the forum (as this one) or do you see possible ways how CHatGPT can be useful in this context (like asking it to add examples)? 
I would love to hear your opinion on this as I would like to further experiment with ChatGPT.

Hi! I think ChatGPT could be useful as a "personal assistant" for common subtasks in essay writing (coming up with examples, rephrasing text to avoid misinterpretation, etc). However, I personally don't think that fully AI generated essays are yet capable of adding real value to EA decisionmaking.

I thought this might be the output of an LLM (it just has that 'feel'), but ChatGPT actually produced an IMO better essay when prompted with the title of this post:

Complexity science is the study of complex systems, which are systems that consist of many interacting parts that can give rise to emergent behavior. Effective altruism is the idea of using evidence and reasoning to determine the most effective ways to benefit others, and taking action based on that evidence.

In recent years, effective altruism has become an increasingly popular movement, with a growing number of people seeking to use their resources and talents to make a positive impact on the world. At the same time, complexity science has begun to shed light on some of the fundamental principles that govern the behavior of complex systems, such as networks, ecosystems, and social organizations.

One of the key insights of complexity science is that the behavior of complex systems cannot be fully understood by simply analyzing the individual parts of the system in isolation. Instead, it is necessary to consider how the parts interact with each other and how they combine to produce emergent behavior. This is because the interactions among the parts of a complex system can give rise to behavior that is not predictable from the behavior of the individual parts alone.

This insight has important implications for effective altruism. For example, when trying to address a complex social problem, such as poverty or inequality, it is not enough to simply identify the individual causes of the problem and address them one by one. Instead, it is necessary to take a more holistic approach that considers how the different causes of the problem are interconnected and how they combine to produce the overall effect.

Another key insight of complexity science is that complex systems can exhibit surprising and counterintuitive behavior. For example, in some cases, small changes to a system can have large and unexpected effects, while in other cases, large changes can have little or no effect. This means that interventions designed to address complex problems may not always produce the intended results, and it may be necessary to adapt and adjust the interventions in response to feedback from the system.

This insight has important implications for effective altruism because it suggests that even well-intentioned interventions can have unintended consequences. For example, an intervention that is designed to address a particular aspect of a complex problem may actually make the overall problem worse by disrupting the delicate balance of the system. In order to avoid these kinds of unintended consequences, it is important for effective altruists to be aware of the complexity of the systems they are trying to address and to approach their interventions with caution and flexibility.

Overall, complexity science is an important field for effective altruism because it offers insights into the nature of complex systems and how they behave. By taking these insights into account, effective altruists can develop more effective interventions and avoid unintended consequences. This can help them to make a greater positive impact on the world and contribute to a better future for everyone.

I did not downvote, but I suspect one reason it is downvoted is because it's not clear what we can really do with this information.

I can agree that complexity science is important. But how do we use it ?

For instance, giving a specific example indicating where there is one thing we should change on [insert topic] would be good I think. Then, you can tell how complexity science helped providing such result (the classis "show, don't tell" approach).

Thank you everybody for your feedback.
As some of you already noticed this was a text generated by ChatGPT.  I was interested in how the community would react to this kind of post. 
I chose the topic of complexity science as  it has a little presents in the community and could inspire people to further look into it.  
I would like to further experiment with ChatGPT and how it could add value to EA.
This firtst attempt seemd to have not added much value and I would love to hear from you why you think that is and what that means for the future implementation of ChatGPT.

More from Nikiz
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 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
 ·  · 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
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Many thanks to Constance Li, Rachel Mason, Ronen Bar, Sam Tucker-Davis, and Yip Fai Tse for providing valuable feedback. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Artificial General Intelligence (basically, ‘AI that is as good as, or better than, humans at most intellectual tasks’) seems increasingly likely to be developed in the next 5-10 years. As others have written, this has major implications for EA priorities, including animal advocacy, but it’s hard to know how this should shape our strategy. This post sets out a few starting points and I’m really interested in hearing others’ ideas, even if they’re very uncertain and half-baked. Is AGI coming in the next 5-10 years? This is very well covered elsewhere but basically it looks increasingly likely, e.g.: * The Metaculus and Manifold forecasting platforms predict we’ll see AGI in 2030 and 2031, respectively. * The heads of Anthropic and OpenAI think we’ll see it by 2027 and 2035, respectively. * A 2024 survey of AI researchers put a 50% chance of AGI by 2047, but this is 13 years earlier than predicted in the 2023 version of the survey. * These predictions seem feasible given the explosive rate of change we’ve been seeing in computing power available to models, algorithmic efficiencies, and actual model performance (e.g., look at how far Large Language Models and AI image generators have come just in the last three years). * Based on this, organisations (both new ones, like Forethought, and existing ones, like 80,000 Hours) are taking the prospect of near-term AGI increasingly seriously. What could AGI mean for animals? AGI’s implications for animals depend heavily on who controls the AGI models. For example: * AGI might be controlled by a handful of AI companies and/or governments, either in alliance or in competition. * For example, maybe two government-owned companies separately develop AGI then restrict others from developing it. * These actors’ use of AGI might be dr