Sharing https://earec.net, semantic search for the EA + rationality ecosystem. Not fully up to date, sadly (doesn't have the last month or so of content). The current version is basically a minimal viable product! 

On the results page there is also an option to see EA Forum only results which allow you to sort by a weighted combination of karma and semantic similarity thanks to the API!

Final feature to note is that there's an option to have gpt-4o-mini "manually" read through the summary of each article on the current screen of results, which will give better evaluations of relevance to some query (e.g. "sources I can use for a project on X") than semantic similarity alone.

Still kinda janky - as I said, minimal viable product right now. Enjoy and feedback is welcome!

Thanks to @Nathan Young for commissioning this! 

Christ, why isn’t OpenPhil taking any action, even making a comment or filing an amicus curiae?

I certainly hope there’s some legitimate process going on behind the scenes; this seems like an awfully good time to spend whatever social/political/economic/human capital OP leadership wants to say is the binding constraint.

And OP is an independent entity. If the main constraint is “our main funder doesn’t want to pick a fight,” well so be it—I guess Good Ventures won’t sue as a proper donor the way Musk is; OP can still submit some sort of non-litigant comment. Naively, at least, that could weigh non trivially on a judge/AG

Reranking universities by representation in EA survey per undergraduate student, which seems relevant to figuring out what CB strategies are working (obviously plenty of confounders). Data from 1 minute of googling + LLMs so grain of salt

There does seem to be a moderate positive correlation here so nothing shocking IMO.

Same chart as above but by original order 

Done, thanks!

I did not know that, thanks!

Offer subject to be arbitrarily stopping at some point (not sure exactly how many I'm willing to do)

Give me chatGPT Deep Research queries and I'll run them. My asks are that:

1. You write out exactly what you want the prompt to be so I can just copy and paste something in
2. Feel free to request a specific model (I think the options are o1, o1-pro, o3-mini, and o3-mini-high) but be ok with me downgrading to o3-mini
3. Be cool with me very hastily answering the inevitable set of follow-up questions that always get asked (seems unavoidable for whatever reason). I might say something like "all details are specified above; please use your best judgement"

I have a weird amount of experience with the second thing (dealing with formatted PDFs) and may be able to help - feel free to DM!

I’ll just highlight that it seems particularly cruxy whether to view such NDAs as covenants or contracts that are not intrinsically immoral to break

It’s not obvious to me that it should be the former, especially when the NDA comes with basically a monetary incentive for not breaking

Here is a kinda naive LLM prompt you may wish to use for inspiration and iterate on:

“List positions of power in the world with the highest ratio of power : difficulty to obtain. Focus only on positions that are basically obtainable by normal arbitrary US citizens and are not illegal or generally considered immoral

I’m interested in positions of unusually high leverage over national or international systems”
 

It’s  personal taste, but for me the high standards (if implicit) - not only in reasoning quality but also as you say, formality (and I’d add comprehensiveness/covering all your bases) are a much bigger disincentive to posting than dry/serious tone (which maybe I just don’t mind a ton).

I’m not even sure this is bad; possibly lower standards would be worse all things considered. But still, it’s a major disincentive to publishing.