1. I stated “I see this mostly as an experiment into whether having a simple “event” can cause people to publish more stuff” and I feel like the answer is conclusively “yes”. I put a little bit of effort into pitching people, and I’m sure that my title and personal connections didn’t hurt, but this really was not a terribly heavy lift.
    1. Thanks to the fortnight I have a post I can reference for EA being a do-ocracy! I would encourage other people to try to organize things like this.
  2. I noticed an interesting phenomenon: contributors who are less visible in EA wanted to participate because they thought it would give their writing more attention, and people who are more visible in EA wanted to participate because they thought it would give their writing less attention.[1]
    1. I think the average EA might underestimate the extent to which being visible in EA (e.g. speaking at EAG) is seen as a burden rather than an opportunity.
    2. This feels like an important problem to solve, though outside the bounds of  this project.

3. Part of my goal was to get conversations that are happening in private into a more public venue. I think this basically worked, at least measured by “conversations that I personally have been having in private”. There are some ways in which karma did not reflect what I personally thought was most important though:

  • I’ve started to worry that it might be important to get digital sentience work (e.g. legal protection for digital beings) before we get transformative AI, and EA’s seem like approximately the only people who could realistically do this in the next ~5 years.[2] So I would have liked to have seen more grappling with this post, although in fairness Jeff wasn’t making a strong pitch for prioritizing AI welfare.
  • I also find myself making the points that Arden raised here pretty regularly, and wish there was more engagement with them.

4. When doing a “special event” on the forum, I always wonder whether the event will add to the forum’s engagement or just cannibalize existing engagement. I think the strategy fortnight was mostly additive, although it’s pretty hard to know the counterfactual.

5. Some events I would be interested in someone trying to organize on the Forum

  • “Everyone change your job week”[3] – opportunity for people to think seriously about whether they should change their jobs, write up a post about it, and then get feedback from other Forum users
  • Rotblat day – Joseph Rotblat was a physicist on the Manhattan project who was originally motivated by wanting to defeat Nazi Germany, but withdrew once he realized the project was actually motivated by wanting to defeat the USSR. On Rotblat day, people post what signs they would look for to determine if their work was being counterproductive.
  • “Should we have an AI moratorium?” debate week – basically the comments here, except you recruit people to give longer form takes.
  • Video week – people create and post video versions of forum articles (or other EA content)
  1. ^

     Or more specifically: they would be seen as one of many voices, rather than someone whose opinions should receive special attention/deference

  2. ^

     Largely because no one else cares.

  3. ^

     This and the Rotblat idea come from Sydney Von Arx

Comments14


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Firstly - thank you for stepping up at this crucial time for the EA community, Ben. I can only imagine how challenging it must be.

Some thoughts about the Strategy Fortnight: I think it was a good experiment on a platform that many in the community value highly (significantly more than I do). I enjoyed many of the posts, especially Will's. It seems to have improved the quality and coordination of more targeted, constructive posts, and it increased short-term engagement around one particular initiative/topic. Still, those most likely to contribute in this manner are those who have strong connections in the community (or are regular Forum users; just look at who published the top posts). I see this as one piece of the community engagement/feedback puzzle (the EA Community Survey is another great example). 
 

I would love to see additional initiatives experimented with. Just to name a few: A parliamentary model of decision-making across EA organizations (this is a bit complicated to explain succinctly; I would be happy to discuss it further); quarterly public/live meetings/events from each large organization in the EA space that are designed to increase transparency and engagement/feedback; and a leadership summit for EA org leaders to coordinate on cross-community strategy and develop a comprehensive risk assessment (of current and future risks to organizations and "the EA brand") and relevant mechanisms to address these risks.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness about how to improve the community!

I think the average EA might underestimate the extent to which being visible in EA (e.g. speaking at EAG) is seen as a burden rather than an opportunity.

Related: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pDzdb4smpzT3Lwbym/my-model-of-ea-burnout?commentId=Xz2xzWEuLAiHsFWzf

I had high expectations and they were exceeded! I really appreciated the positivity and encouraging vibe, as well as gaining a better understanding of the EA community landscape, from the leadership perspective (mckaskill), funding perspective and the different movements in community building around the world.

Love the Fortnite meme, although your understanding hitrate might be under 50 percent here haha.

Can you ELI30 the meme?

There is a videogame named Fortnite and when you win you see the screenshot included at the top of this post.[1]

  1. ^

    (I think, I've never actually played the game, I only know the memes.)

I really enjoyed the fortnight and found a lot of the discussion to be really good! I'm also grateful to Ben for noting that a lot of people, even famous people who'd agreed in advance to write posts, were likely to procrastinate. That comment was the kick that got me to finally write the post about disability issues I'd been meaning to write for quite some time.

Oh cool, I'm glad to hear that this triggered you to write that post! I thought it was helpful.

Everyone change your job week

 

I really like this one. I think its success should be judged by the number of people quitting their job in the next month. Not that everyone should, but that's the proof that it's a live option people are taking seriously.

I would participate in video week!

I think the strategy fortnight was mostly additive, although it’s pretty hard to know the counterfactual.

I think the easiest way to test this would be to show the 7 day rolling average of non-strategy-week posts and strategy-week-posts as a stacked chart, which should make it more intuitively clear to the naked eye.

On Rotblat day, people post what signs they would look for to determine if their work was being counterproductive.

How about May 7, the day of the German surrender?

Re: others organizing special events on the forum--

I think if CEA came up with a process for that, which included CEA promoting the event organized by a non-CEA person, that might help this happen.

There could be a "forum special event" form, where someone can suggest a theme, write up a description, and get feedback from CEA on it. Maybe the feedback would be to clarify the description, or to suggest a specific time for the event to be synchronized (or not) with related other events. E.g. if there's an insect welfare conference happening at time X, it might work well to have an insect welfare forum fortnight soon after that.

And then the promotion could be to include the event announcement in the EA Newsletter or pin the announcement post to the home page of the forum for a bit.

I’ve started to worry that it might be important to get digital sentience work (e.g. legal protection for digital beings) before we get transformative AI, and EA’s seem like approximately the only people who could realistically do this in the next ~5 years.

I was interested to see you mention this, as this is something I think is very important.

The phrasing here got me thinking a bit about what would that look like if we were try to make meaningful changes within 5 years specifically.

But I was wondering why you used the "~5 years" phrase here?

(Do you think transformative AI is likely within 5 years?)

Metaculus currently says 7% (for one definition of "transformative").

But I chose five years more because it's hard for me to predict things further in the future, rather than because most of my probability mass is in the <5 year range.

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
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism