Idea: I think it might be impactful for someone to run a call-your-representative / public comment newsletter. I’m imagining something pretty simple: EAers (or EA orgs) submit information about pieces of legislation that people should call their reps to support or oppose, or a regulation that people should submit public comment on. Someone collects all those submissions and sends them out in monthly batches to a distribution list, and those people call their lawmakers/make a public comment/etc. I imagine a lot of the process could be automated with Google Forms and a preset email distribution list.

This would obviously be fairly small-scale as a set of actions, but I still think it could be impactful. There are tons of laws that are very small and don’t get much/any press, but matter a lot for EA cause areas. (For example, here are two bills I’ve seen in the last few weeks to support carbon dioxide removal, which is a high priority for many climate change EAers.) And for many representatives, hearing from as few as 5 constituents on something small can make them sit up and take notice. A few calls won’t convince anyone who’s strongly opposed to change their mind, but getting a lawmaker to pay attention to something they’d otherwise ignore can be really important as well — especially for smaller bills that fly under the radar. Since it only takes a few minutes to make a call, the costs would be pretty small and seem unlikely to trade off with more-impactful work.

I imagine doing this for the US, since that’s where I’m from and what I know most about, but perhaps it would be doable in other regions as well.

I’d be very curious to hear what others think of this idea! If there’s interest, I could imagine taking on this project, but I’d also be very happy for someone else to do it instead.

34

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments8


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I like the idea. Why not do it on the forum though? It could be a tag and you could do individual posts for each piece of legislation. People who are willing to call could subscribe to the tag and would be notified when there was a new post with the tag. People could also discuss in the comments if someone disagreed that it was something EAs should support.

I think this could be a great approach, but my concern is that people might not check the forum often enough (or might not check the tag). My personal experience suggests that one email every few weeks with a list of bills to call about all in one place would be better. But of course that might not be true for others!

The forum will send emails for tags you are subscribed to if you set it up that way in the settings. I think I would prefer the idea of getting the bills to call about one at a time (a big list could be imposing), and having the option to discuss, but it  might be too much friction getting people to set that up though (and I guess some might not have forum accounts).

I think this sounds easier than it would likely be in practice:

-there are a lot of topics that could be considered high impact depending on your beliefs, but are very polarised (for example, access to abortion)

-for topics that are less polarised, it can still require specialist knowledge to tell if legislation is likely to help or hurt

-some well-intentioned legislation makes things worse in ways that isn't obvious from reading a headline

Overall it's reasonable for someone to try this - lots of people do things like this, at varying levels of success! - but I wouldn't recommend just anyone do it, I wouldn't label it as an "EA consensus" but rather one person's views about how legislation could improve wellbeing, and I would be prepared for the possibility of this project being net negative or having almost no impact.

These are very reasonable concerns. To address them, I think it might make sense to limit submissions so that only people employed at EA orgs could submit, and only for bills related to their work at the org. Those people would presumably have the specialized knowledge needed to evaluate the legislation, and  most EA orgs aren't advocating for legislation that is polarizing within the community.

Alternately, submissions could stay open to everyone but the person receiving/organizing the submissions could be empowered to ask for more info about the submission, ask for qualifications from the person proposing the idea, or even delete submissions that aren't aligned to current EA priorities (e.g. related to abortion). I'd like to believe that, if the submission form asked folks to only submit things they had a lot of knowledge about, that they would self-monitor.

for many representatives, hearing from as few as 5 constituents on something small can make them sit up and take notice.

Is this true? Is there evidence?

It is surprisingly so. I had interned for a Congressional office years back and they do take letters more seriously than you'd expect, and that's at the national level, let alone a state/local. This is for reasons of imperfect information: everybody's running around so much and resources are so scattered that nobody really has a view of what their voters care about, so the loudest, most organized voices have surprising sway. Especially if it's a non-polarizing issue, this could definitely work. The key is to have a specific bill that you want voted up or down, make it as easy for the office to process as possible.

Sample size: 1 office. I feel like I had conversations with others about how this was surprising and they confirmed with theirs, but I'm not sure.

I've heard this from activists I trust, but can't cite a specific source. That said, this article (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/what-calling-congress-achieves) has a paragraph which discusses the impact of calling about small bills (control-F "mud-flap" to find the paragraph).

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
Economic growth is a unique field, because it is relevant to both the global development side of EA and the AI side of EA. Global development policy can be informed by models that offer helpful diagnostics into the drivers of growth, while growth models can also inform us about how AI progress will affect society. My friend asked me to create a growth theory reading list for an average EA who is interested in applying growth theory to EA concerns. This is my list. (It's shorter and more balanced between AI/GHD than this list) I hope it helps anyone who wants to dig into growth questions themselves. These papers require a fair amount of mathematical maturity. If you don't feel confident about your math, I encourage you to start with Jones 2016 to get a really strong grounding in the facts of growth, with some explanations in words for how growth economists think about fitting them into theories. Basics of growth These two papers cover the foundations of growth theory. They aren't strictly essential for understanding the other papers, but they're helpful and likely where you should start if you have no background in growth. Jones 2016 Sociologically, growth theory is all about finding facts that beg to be explained. For half a century, growth theory was almost singularly oriented around explaining the "Kaldor facts" of growth. These facts organize what theories are entertained, even though they cannot actually validate a theory – after all, a totally incorrect theory could arrive at the right answer by chance. In this way, growth theorists are engaged in detective work; they try to piece together the stories that make sense given the facts, making leaps when they have to. This places the facts of growth squarely in the center of theorizing, and Jones 2016 is the most comprehensive treatment of those facts, with accessible descriptions of how growth models try to represent those facts. You will notice that I recommend more than a few papers by Chad Jones in this
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achieve 25% on its Frontier Math
Omnizoid
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Edit 1/29: Funding is back, baby!  Crossposted from my blog.   (This could end up being the most important thing I’ve ever written. Please like and restack it—if you have a big blog, please write about it). A mother holds her sick baby to her chest. She knows he doesn’t have long to live. She hears him coughing—those body-wracking coughs—that expel mucus and phlegm, leaving him desperately gasping for air. He is just a few months old. And yet that’s how old he will be when he dies. The aforementioned scene is likely to become increasingly common in the coming years. Fortunately, there is still hope. Trump recently signed an executive order shutting off almost all foreign aid. Most terrifyingly, this included shutting off the PEPFAR program—the single most successful foreign aid program in my lifetime. PEPFAR provides treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS—it has saved about 25 million people since its implementation in 2001, despite only taking less than 0.1% of the federal budget. Every single day that it is operative, PEPFAR supports: > * More than 222,000 people on treatment in the program collecting ARVs to stay healthy; > * More than 224,000 HIV tests, newly diagnosing 4,374 people with HIV – 10% of whom are pregnant women attending antenatal clinic visits; > * Services for 17,695 orphans and vulnerable children impacted by HIV; > * 7,163 cervical cancer screenings, newly diagnosing 363 women with cervical cancer or pre-cancerous lesions, and treating 324 women with positive cervical cancer results; > * Care and support for 3,618 women experiencing gender-based violence, including 779 women who experienced sexual violence. The most important thing PEPFAR does is provide life-saving anti-retroviral treatments to millions of victims of HIV. More than 20 million people living with HIV globally depend on daily anti-retrovirals, including over half a million children. These children, facing a deadly illness in desperately poor countries, are now going
Relevant opportunities