This is a special post for quick takes by Eugenics-Adjacent. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Sorted by Click to highlight new quick takes since:

Over the last few years community members have gone to great lengths to assure people that EA did not favor the idea of prioritizing deaths among poor third-world national human populations in order to preserve wealthier nations for the purpose of fostering artificial intelligence that could one day save humanity. 

This idea was popularized in a very influential founding document of longtermism, and every public-facing EA figure had to defend themselves against accusations of believing this. 

Now, however, with an EA as acting president, we are seeing aid to third-world countries systematically dismantled under an explicitly America-first agenda led by a tech entrepreneur in the AI space. 

How can we deny that this is what EA stands for? 

I deny that we have an EA as acting president. 

Which part? He's said it's his personal philosophy. And he's currently an unelected official making top-level executive decisions in our federal government. At least one of the young tech workers helping him feed foreign aid "into the wood chipper" is also an avowed effective altruist.

acting president [...] unelected official

While Musk is influential, it wasn't clear you were talking about him until your reply

"At least one of the young tech workers helping him feed foreign aid "into the wood chipper" is also an avowed effective altruist."

Can you provide a link for this? Not that I find it implausible, just curious. 

There's also a Cole Killian EA Forum account with one comment from 2022. Looks like he's deleted things though. I googled the post 'SBF, Pascal's Mugging, and a Proposed Solution' and found a dead link. It's on Internet Archive though, you can check it here

Merely listing EA under "Memetics adjacence" does not support the claim "is also an avowed effective altruist."

It's hard to say what "memetics adjacence" means. I take it to be the list of ideologies he subscribes to or feels an affinity with. 

Will Aldred
*Moderator Comment20
5
2

The moderation team is issuing @Eugenics-Adjacent a 6-month ban for flamebait and trolling.

I’ll note that Eugenics-Adjacent’s posts and comments have been mostly about pushing against what they see as EA groupthink. In banning them, I do feel a twinge of “huh, I hope I’m not making the Forum more like an echo chamber.” However, there are tradeoffs at play. “Overrun by flamebait and trolling” seems to be the default end state for most internet spaces: the Forum moderation team is committed to fighting against this default.

All in all, we think the ratio of “good” EA criticism to more-heat-than-light criticism in Eugenics-Adjacent’s contributions is far too low. Additionally, at -220 karma (at the time of writing), Eugenics-Adjacent is one of the most downvoted users of all time—we take this as a clear indication that other users are finding their contributions unhelpful. If Eugenics-Adjacent returns to the Forum, we’ll expect to see significant improvement. I expect we’ll ban them indefinitely if anything like the above continues.

As a reminder, a ban applies to the person behind the account, not just to the particular account.

If anyone has questions or concerns, feel free to reach out or reply in this thread. If you think we’ve made a mistake, you can appeal.

"How can we deny that this is what EA stands for? "

Because most/all leaders would disavow it, including Nick Beckstead, who I imagine wrote the founding document you mean-indeed he's already disavowed it-and we don't personally control Elon, whether or not he considers himself EA? And also, EAs, including some quite aggressively un-PC ones like Scott Alexander and Matthew Adelstein/Bentham's Bulldog have been pushing back strongly against the aid cuts/the America First agenda behind them? 

Having said that, it definitely reduced my opinion of Will MacAskill, or at least his political judgment, that he tried to help SBF get in on Elon's twitter purchase, since I think Elon's fascist leanings were pretty obvious even at that point. And I agree we can ask whether EA ideas influence Musk in a bad direction, whether or not EAs themselves approve of the direction he is going in. 

Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr