1 min read 31

1

Welcome all,

Here's a place to discuss projects, ideas, events and miscellanea relevant to the world of effective altruism!

There have been plenty of these in the last month, including the shipping of Peter Singer's book, Nick Bostrom's TED Talk and Will MacAskill's upcoming book! And also my own EA Handbook! :)

Thanks very much to Marcus Davis for moderating the EA Forum over the past month! He will be wrapping up over the coming weeks, but if anyone else if interested in taking up the reins and using it as a way to promote thoughtful effective altruism, then I would like to hear from you. (You can contact me at contact@effective-altruism.com).

 

1

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments31


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Does anyone have a list of regular meetups and emails for their organizers? I'm interested in trying to get more of the regular meetups posted here to the EA forum.

I follow this site via RSS recently, there have been a few times I have seen articles posted in my rss reader that I wanted to comment on but when I visited the site I could not find the articles - are these articles that people have posted and subsequently deleted/changed their mind about?

I think so. There's no secret parts of the site! Feel free to ask me if it happens again!

The article that prompted this was stefan's article that is now at the top of page - I got. Few different version in my rss and I don't think this is first time it has happened - did he delete the article and republish it or tweak a few times or was I seeing drafts?

Ah, I think that I saw the post on the site, then it disappeared, then came back again. That would suggest that he put it back into his drafts to edit it before posting again, which would explain your experience, but you'd have to ask him.

Ahh ok that makes sense just wanted to check drafts were not being inadvertently published in the rss or something

People sometimes accuse effective altruism or effective altruists of being cold and clinical. What are your thoughts on this accusation and to what extent do you think it's true or false?

For my part:

  • I don't think our attitude to charity is cold. We may often not ultimately care about particular causes, but we mostly care about some terminal values like preventing suffering. And this moves us to give large amounts, or even give until it hurts. Whereas many people barely give at all, or at least don't respond to the fact that giving up luxuries could save lives and prevent enormous amounts of suffering.

  • That said, not all EAs are motivated by warmth or caring.

  • The many EAs I've known have on average had above average general warmth. Unsurprisingly, some have been exceptionally warm and some exceptionally cold.

  • I don't feel I have a good understanding of the accusation of coldness. Some of it may be discomfort at turning down opportunities to help (e.g. giving to homeless people you pass, arguably) because of the numbers.

  • There are some personality types and subgroups within EA which may naturally be a little colder. (E.g. the ones often referred to as "geeky" or "autistic", although I don't know if this is a slur against autistic people.)

  • I should say this accusation isn't something I have a chip on my shoulder about; I don't think people often find me cold at all.

Two questions: (i) do you agree with my hypothesis; and (ii) if so, does it matter?

Non-directed kidney donation seems to be a part of the EA culture, for obvious reasons. Separately, a cornerstone of the EA perspective is that emotional empathy is not enough: cognitive empathy (i.e., reason) should play a critical, even dominant, role in our moral decision-making.

A recent, highly publicized study found that non-directed kidney donors have greater-than-average emotional empathy: "The results of brain scans and behavioral testing suggests that these donors have some structural and functional brain differences that may make them more sensitive, on average, to other people's distress." http://www.georgetown.edu/news/abigail-marsh-brain-altruism-study.html

Hypothesis: That doesn't hold for EA types that have donated kidneys.

Relevant: Kidney donation is a reasonable choice for effective altruists and more should consider it.

Do you think EAs are in general not unusually empathetic? I discussed a similar issue elsewhere in this open thread.

Thanks for the link, Tom. And yes, I agree that my hypothesis is an indirect answer to the question you posed elsewhere in this thread.

I don't personally know that many EAs, but I am certainly on the cold side of the emotional spectrum. I am sure there are psych/neuroscience papers on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if emotional and cognitive empathy can work at cross purposes (see, e.g., trolley hypotheticals), which might be why those who have a lot of the latter have less of the former.

I'm a former coworker of Matt Wage, an effective altruist that was mentioned recently in the NYT (see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-the-trader-who-donates-half-his-pay.html). I wrote a piece you can see here http://www.modestinsights.com/?p=103 about EA and leaving wall street. Has the question of leaving a job where you are earning to give (or perhaps your coworkers are) ever received much discussion? I would be interested in any reactions.

Sure, I've taken a hiatus from medicine to help more directly with existential risk reduction charities. Marek also left finance to work at CEA. For some people, working in finance is going to be psychologically unhealthy. Some will get fatigued and drop out. But it's also a good option for many. Have you looked for other ways to do good?

I have not seen any extended discussion of it, but I know of individuals in this position (ie considering leaving jobs where they are earning to give) and I'm sure Benjamin Todd, the executive director of 80,000 Hours, will be aware of other examples. Obviously, career decisions are intensely personal, so I don't think either of us can say much publicly about any such individuals.

I think exploration of leaving earning to give jobs is a (small) gap in Effective Altruist discussion at the moment - but then we're only less than four years past the point when 80,000 hours was founded! Perhaps more writing on the topic will appear in the coming few months and years.

I'm seriously considering attending the upcoming EA summit in SF. If you were at the 2014 summit, I'm curious what the experience was like. If you have any information about the 2015 version, I'd also be very interested.

I don't have time now, but I actually took extensive notes on the 2014 Summit because I'm excessively nerdy. Ping me about this on Tuesday if I haven't responded by then. I'll fill you in!

I have recently just cold-added about 10% of my FB friends who I thought might be interested in EA to the EA facebook group. Probably added about 40 people in one go. What do people think of this outreach strategy? I think it's a pretty unintrusive soft sell that doesn't take a lot of time and could be a good foot in the door technique.

If someone did this to me for a group like EA that I wasn't into I would be pretty annoyed.

Though I would mostly be annoyed at FB for letting people add you to groups.

As another data point, I'd be at most slightly annoyed, and just leave the group. So the benefit might be worth the slight annoyance and social cost, in a similar way to that I discussed in Spreading EA messages to friends - including giving the hard sell.

It might be a bit jarring for people to be thrown into a group without knowing much about what it is or why. Maybe if you also coupled it with a PM to them explaining it?

I think that's the beauty of it :)

but yes maybe one could follow up after a while with a PM.

You can also 'invite' people to join the group rather than add them straight to it - perhaps a bit less jarring this way, especially with a bit of PM explanation

Plain friend request is more fun than friend-request-accompanied-by-sales-pitch!

[anonymous]0
0
0

I think it would be a very good thing to encourage other EAs to do at least a smaller version of this. After reading your comment, I realised that ~3% of my FB friends were particularly receptive to EA ideas, but hadn't even been invited to the group yet. I invited them immediately.

I tend to agree with Peter that coupling it with something else, like a FB message (or maybe something more personal), would be good for anyone outside that first couple of percent.

Sounds helpful to me.

Should we be paying much more attention to what evangelical religions have done (effectively or ineffectively) to recruit?

Plausibly, are any methods promising for us?

I know next to nothing about their methods other than that (i) they've been developing them for a long time and (ii) they seem to be effective. The singular importance of recruitment is an unusual quality for a social movement, but it's one we both have in common.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

It looks like there's a Christians and EA Facebook group, though only Christians can join. But someone could join it, ask there, and report back?

[Virtual assistants and online freelancers]

Does anyone know of good virtual assistants (or general purpose online freelancers who could do various admin tasks) who they could introduce me to? What are people's experience of them, or online freelancers generally? Any tips for picking good ones?

I'd recommend employing VAs in general. I use them primarily for EA work.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
We’ve written a new report on the threat of AI-enabled coups.  I think this is a very serious risk – comparable in importance to AI takeover but much more neglected.  In fact, AI-enabled coups and AI takeover have pretty similar threat models. To see this, here’s a very basic threat model for AI takeover: 1. Humanity develops superhuman AI 2. Superhuman AI is misaligned and power-seeking 3. Superhuman AI seizes power for itself And now here’s a closely analogous threat model for AI-enabled coups: 1. Humanity develops superhuman AI 2. Superhuman AI is controlled by a small group 3. Superhuman AI seizes power for the small group While the report focuses on the risk that someone seizes power over a country, I think that similar dynamics could allow someone to take over the world. In fact, if someone wanted to take over the world, their best strategy might well be to first stage an AI-enabled coup in the United States (or whichever country leads on superhuman AI), and then go from there to world domination. A single person taking over the world would be really bad. I’ve previously argued that it might even be worse than AI takeover. [1] The concrete threat models for AI-enabled coups that we discuss largely translate like-for-like over to the risk of AI takeover.[2] Similarly, there’s a lot of overlap in the mitigations that help with AI-enabled coups and AI takeover risk — e.g. alignment audits to ensure no human has made AI secretly loyal to them, transparency about AI capabilities, monitoring AI activities for suspicious behaviour, and infosecurity to prevent insiders from tampering with training.  If the world won't slow down AI development based on AI takeover risk (e.g. because there’s isn’t strong evidence for misalignment), then advocating for a slow down based on the risk of AI-enabled coups might be more convincing and achieve many of the same goals.  I really want to encourage readers — especially those at labs or governments — to do something
Relevant opportunities
72
· · 3m read