All of aaronhamlin's Comments + Replies

Ethical Implications of AI in Military Operations: A Look at Project Nimbus
 


Recently, 'Democracy Now' highlighted Google’s involvement in Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion initiative to provide cloud computing services to the Israeli government, including military applications. Google employees have raised concerns about the use of AI in creating 'kill lists' with minimal human oversight, as well as the usage of Google Photos to identify and detain individuals. This raises ethical questions about the role of AI in warfare and surveillance.

Despite a sit-i... (read more)

The funding to gather the signatures wasn't there. The main thing is just money and that tends to be why Irv campaigns take off instead. Money. Happy to talk with folks about supporting specific campaigns. Feel free to reach out.

While I support approval voting and election reform, I unfortunately can no longer personally recommend funding for this organization.

Note that funding was not sufficient to be able to move forward for this campaign. Feel free to reach out to me for other statewide funding opportunities.

2
JWS
8mo
Sorry to hear that Aaron :(  So just to confirm, there won't be statewide ballot to move Missouri voting to the approval voting system? Was it due to a lack of signatures or a lack of funding? Following on, what are the prospects for approval voting in Missouri over the next few years, and what do you think EA could (or should) add to voting-reform efforts both in the US and elsewhere?

The implementation keeps the primaries throughout the state as-is.

Right now, Missouri's primaries are "open" in the sense that you must vote within a party, but you can choose which party at any time. This would stay the same, but in both the primary and general, approval voting would be used. The campaign chose this system-wide change as the easiest option.

Additionally, approval voting would allow for independents to be viable candidates in the general.

Adding the link to CES was meant as a way of showing the need, but I don't think it was taken that way. Removing to keep the focus on the poster's idea and avoid my appearance of self promotion.

I consistently recommend Fidelity to others when talking about DAFs. Here's an article I did on DAFs.

Why Fidelity Charitable?

  1. They're the largest DAF in the world and have efficient internal processes. They approve pretty much everything and if it's new or controversial to them, they get back to you quickly. 
  2. They make direct transfers to the charity's bank account. You don't want some check just flying around. Many banks send off paper checks. No need for that nonsense.
  3. They also handle cryptocurrency, which is nice. There may be some extra paperwork, b
... (read more)

If you like, I talk with lots of folks on technical aspects of giving, particularly as it also relates to balancing practical considerations like retirement. Feel free to message me.

You can also check out a number of essays I've written on this topic: https://www.aaronhamlin.com/articles/#philanthropy

I know our team isn't super excited by this switch by Every.org. Will be interesting to see how it goes.

This is a big need for a lot of organizations, including ours at The Center for Election Science. We're looking for especially well networked candidates, particularly those who could help with funding bottlenecks. We use committees to do internal board duties. See our board posting here: https://electionscience.org/join-our-board/

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
1
aaronhamlin
1y
Adding the link to CES was meant as a way of showing the need, but I don't think it was taken that way. Removing to keep the focus on the poster's idea and avoid my appearance of self promotion.

Hi Adam,

I think your response fairly addresses the concerns I initially raised, and I appreciate your effort there. Thank you for the delicate response.

"I am skeptical whether CES will be able to have much influence at the federal level . . ."

It's worth mentioning that CES highlighted that approval voting was able to be used for US House, US Senate, Presidential general, and Presidential Primaries with state-wide ballot initiatives. This information seems to be missing in the write-up and instead states that it doesn't influence Federal elections. 

The write-up also seems to portray local-level reform is CES' only goal. Again. we provided feedback on this issue. We also corrected the review on the cos... (read more)

7
AdamGleave
2y
Hi Aaron, thanks for highlighting this. We inadvertently published an older version of the write-up before your feedback -- this has been corrected now. However, there are still a number of areas in the revised version which I expect you'll still take issue with, so I wanted to share a bit of perspective on this. I think it's excellent you brought up this disagreement in a comment, and would encourage people to form their own opinion. First, for a bit of context, my grant write-ups are meant to accurately reflect my thought process, including any reservations I have about a grant. They're not meant to present all possible perspectives -- I certainly hope that donors use other data points when making their decisions, including of course CES's own fundraising materials. My understanding is you have two main disagreements with the write-up: that I understate CES's ability to have an impact on the federal level, and that the cost effectiveness is lower than you believe to be true. On the federal level, my updated write-up acknowledges that "CES may be able to have influence at the federal level by changing state-level voting rules on how senators and representatives are elected. This is not something they have accomplished yet, but would be a fairly natural extension of the work they have done so far." However, I remain skeptical regarding the Presidential general for the reasons stated: it'll remain effectively a two-candidate race until a majority of electoral college votes can be won by approval voting. I do not believe you ever addressed that concern. Regarding the cost effectiveness, I believe your core concern was that we included your total budget as a cost, whereas much of your spending is allocated towards longer-term initiatives that do not directly win a present-day approval voting campaign. This was intended as a rough metric -- a more careful analysis would be needed to pinpoint the cost effectiveness. However, I'm not sure that such an analysis would n

Job Title: Director of Operations & Outreach

Organization: The Center for Election Science

Location: Virtual (US Based)

Salary: $65,000 + great benefits

More info and application process in the link: https://electionscience.org/ces-updates/were-hiring-a-director-of-operations-and-outreach

Within a week would be best as the opening closes within a few weeks.

We're hiring at the moment at The Center for Election Science for an operations director. We are open to EA and non EA applicants alike. We'd like to be able to pay more than $65K with a larger budget but we provide good benefits and are transparent. We are constantly trying to improve our process. If you have any feedback, feel free to share.

https://electionscience.org/ces-updates/were-hiring-a-director-of-operations-and-outreach/

2
AnonymousThrowAway
2y
I'll take a look - any time you'd like me to get back to you by?

I feel like this comment falls in this category:

"Q: I heard there was this thing about approval voting that wasn’t so good or that another voting method was better. Also, don’t forget about Arrow’s Theorem.

A: All voting methods have quirks, but we maintain that the quirks of approval voting are comparatively mild compared to the alternatives. You can see this article where we go into all the details about approval voting critiques. Also, I talked with Kenneth Arrow personally for an hour, and he said that our choose-one voting method was bad. Really."


I put... (read more)

2
Marcus_Ogren
2y
I fully agree with CES's decision not to commit any more resources in Denver or Broomfield. I also agree that "approval voting can thrive as a candidate and be implemented so that it may be tested alongside IRV", though I expect that most of this thriving will occur in places like Fargo where technical challenges prevent the implementation of IRV (or even STAR). However, it's far too soon to dismiss the chances of STAR voting catching on. Getting it adopted in the first city will be the hardest since it doesn't have much of a track record. Portland didn't actually get to vote on it (they failed to get it onto the ballot due to a lack of funds), and the election where it was rejected occurred in Lane County, OR, where it still got 47.6% of the vote. Had they only tried to get STAR voting in the city of Eugene (the largest city in Lane County) they would have almost certainly succeeded; as you noted, "voting methods poll much, much better in cities", and it received over 70% of the vote where STAR advocates had done most of their campaigning (mainly in Eugene). Subsequent efforts to get STAR voting on the ballot in Eugene have been stymied by the pandemic and by some of the signatures they collected being wrongly rejected, but it's going to happen sooner or later and STAR voting is highly likely to pass when it does. I don't blame you for dismissing Condorcet though; I'm in a very small minority in viewing it as politically viable and I don't know of anyone else who has written about why it can catch on.

Thanks for all you've done for the forum, Aaron! It was a challenging assignment to say the least. And a personal thank you for your feedback on some of my not-so-short essays! Best of luck on your new path. I'll be cheering you on.

Nice find, and thank you for sharing! I can verify that it worked quickly.

Useful for: Anyone who is required to show COVID Day 2 testing verification for their flight to the UK from the US (or other "non-red" countries).

Getting my ticket through British Airways automatically sent me through a confirmation process for a "Health Passenger Locator Form." Part of this requirement is for booking a COVID test prior to arrival in London (but actually done in London). The form actually doesn't let you proceed until 48 hours prior to your arrival in London, so this information may be helpful for those approaching that window.

There is a w... (read more)

Congrats, Ben! In terms of targets for any donation, I'd be happy to talk with you about The Center for Election Science, where I'm the executive director.

In terms of strategies relating to tax efficiency and giving, I'd be happy to talk with you and your financial advisor. I think a lot about this topic and have written about it quite a bit. I actually just finished my sixth essay on giving and taxes. Aside from working in the nonprofit sector for going on ten years, I'm also a licensed attorney. Feel free to email me and we can set up a call.

The Center for Election Science could easily make efficient use of greater than $50M a year with infrastructure and ballot initiatives. We've already laid out a plan on how we would spend it. We could also potentially build towards some hyper-aggressive $100M years by including lobbying in the remaining states that don't allow ballot initiatives. In any case, we are woefully underfunded relative to our goals and could at the very least surpass the $50M threshold in a couple of years with sufficient funding. If even greater funding were available, we could ... (read more)

0
DPiepgrass
2y
Okay, but I'm not persuaded that the Center for Election Science is scientific. I think it should be called "The Center for Approval Voting (especially the single-winner district kind)™" I studied electoral systems for a school project and reached very different conclusions, for instance: that all single-winner-district systems are inherently  non-proportional and subject to gerrymandering. I went so far as to design my own system (I suppose its merits are debatable — but never debated). In emails from the CES I see none of the insights I gained in my school project — nothing about criteria for evaluating voting systems, no theories about what the goals of a voting system should be and how to achieve them... except narrowly-crafted articles focused on crowning Approval Voting the winner, usually without surveying alternatives. Quite the contrary, CES newsletters read more like the many political propaganda emails from which I have long since unsubscribed. I agree that maybe this is the best way to achieve your Approval Voting goals. Most political emails simply tell people what to believe and what to vote for, not bothering with evidence or balance. It's probably done this way because it works. But don't call it "science", okay? Edit: Downvotes are not counterarguments. If you can't say why I'm wrong, maybe I'm not wrong.

One idea may be predictors of successful fundraising (ex// sector, revenue source, revenue distribution)
 

Do you see existential risks being mitigated without (1) strong governmental policy on those issue areas and (2) the ability for those policies to be sustained over a long time scale?

Follow-ups if yes:
1. How urgent is having a system where those governmental policies can reliably take hold?
2. Which country or countries should be prioritized?

Follow-up if no:
1. What would you recommend we focus on alongside or instead of governmental policy changes?

If an applicant has a strong stats and data analysis background, I would still encourage them to apply. It can sometimes be hard to check off every single box. Either way, please share with your network as well. Thanks!

I know it's a struggle to balance polishing and publishing. I find it challenging to balance myself. But I'd love to read your post when you have it up all the way.  I think a lot of us are curious about the interaction between longtermism, immediacy, and philanthropic investment.

I'm also a heavy sympathizer towards longtermism. But I don't know that the dilemma needs to be framed as an either/or. Many of the endeavors I've personally gotten behind—bringing new reversible male contraceptives to market and fundamentally improving elections—impact the short-to-mid-term future as well as the long-term future. 

That's because these interventions have the ability to have a positive impact now, plus their staying power impacts the future. That contrasts with interventions that deal with consumables or models where you have to keep ad... (read more)

4
MichaelA
3y
[This comment just responds to one part of what you said, not the whole thing] I do think that that can be valuable, but I personally expect that changing "where civilization ends up" is much more important than changing how fast we get there. To expand on my thinking on this, here's a section from a post I drafted last year but keep not quite getting around to polishing + publishing: --- Beckstead writes that our actions might, instead of or in addition to “slightly or significantly alter[ing] the world's development trajectory”, speed up development: Technically, I think that increases in the pace of development are trajectory changes. At the least, they would change the steepness of one part of the curve. We can illustrate this with the following graph, where actions aimed at speeding up development would be intended to increase the likelihood of the green trajectory relative to the navy one:  This seems to be the sort of picture Benjamin Todd has in mind when he writes: However, I think speeding up development could also affect “where we end up”, for two reasons.  Firstly, if it makes us spread to the stars earlier and faster, this may increase the amount of resources we can ultimately use. We can illustrate this with the following graph, where again actions aimed at speeding up development would be intended to increase the likelihood of the green trajectory relative to the navy one:   Secondly, more generally, speeding up development could affect which trajectory we’re likely to take. For example, faster economic growth might decrease existential risk by reducing international tensions, or increase it by allowing us less time to prepare for and adjust to each new risky technology. Arguably, this might be best thought of as a way in which speeding up development could, as a side effect, affect other types of trajectory change. --- (The draft post was meant to be just "A typology of strategies for influencing the future", rather than an argument for one

We may have a campaign in 2021 (our initial play is riskier here), but we can't say yet for sure. We have other cities lined up for 2022. What I can say is all the cities we have in mind are over 750,000 people and are all very well known. We've laid out a strategic plan involving polling and legal analysis to factor in where to prioritize given our available funding. We're working for a surprise win in 2021 to excite our funders.

Thanks! You're right. There's so much to be said for making an approach as simple as possible.

Thanks! We look forward to continuing our impact. I'm always impressed with our team and what we're able to do with our resources.

This is really good news and reduces the barrier to utilize a great giving tool. Thanks so much for sharing this!

Sometimes membership dues can be deductable with a nonprofit but normally not in exchange for a service. For example, you could likely deduct ACLU membership dues. But they're not requiring membership in exchange for a service. I'd find the Alcor deduction much more questionable given that the only folks who get memberships are the ones who are being cryopreserved.

This is actually a more complicated response. One of my next essays will be on this topic, so thanks for asking!

2
EdoArad
3y
Thanks, looking forward reading it :)

Congrats on your giving! I would maybe add a note of caution if you were anticipating deducting fees to Alcor on your taxes. Even though they're a c3, they're providing a service to you. An analogy would be deducting fees for a YMCA gym membership, which is also not tax deductible.

I also say this being an Alcor member myself. Also, here's a resource on charitable giving and taxes I put together that may be useful: https://medium.com/@aaronhamlin/your-guide-to-charitable-giving-and-taxes-a7c0f44c922

Note that I don't count my payments for membership/cryopreservation towards my giving.

2
Taymon
3y
Alcor claims on their brochure that membership dues "may be" tax-deductible. It's not clear to me how they concluded that. Somebody should probably ask them.

It's interesting that you were working on this as this exact issue came up during a project I was working on with Dan Hageman on directing folks to EA-aligned charities for employer gift matching. You can see the criteria that we set, though we don't have a more exhaustive list that you're attempting.
https://www.matchformore.org/where-should-i-give

Would you be able to add The Center for Election Science? We would fall under Far Future or Other, though preferably Far Future.

The Center for Election Science (CES) - Empowers voters through voting methods that strengthen democracy. CES accomplishes its mission through research and collaborating to pass ballot initiatives for approval voting. CES maintains that approval voting elects more consensus-style candidates and is more likely to maintain governmental stability over a long time frame in addition to providing near-term benefit.

Thanks!

7
EdoArad
3y
I saw this now and was surprised that you prefer to fall under Far Future (which I take to mean something like >1000 years). When you talk about improving stability over a long time frame, what time frame are you thinking of? 
2
JamieGittins
3y
Added! Thanks!

Naturally, as the ED for CES, this is my favorite idea!

This is a good suggestion, one I'll keep in mind as I read posts that I find valuable. As someone who appreciates how hard it is to write a complex essay, I can say that it's encouraging to see positive responses alongside critiques. Positive responses register more clearly than an upvote and often include useful information as well.

Thanks for sharing, and I like the easy-to-read format of this post! As a reminder for those considering giving that under the CARES Act (this year only) if you're in the US and don't itemize, you can make up to a $300 above-the-line deduction for cash-only charitable donations.

I'm liking LEEP & Giving Green in particular, but I'm always excited by the charities that Charity Entrepreneurship puts out.

Resources for those thinking of giving below:

CARES Act Details: https://medium.com/@aaronhamlin/a-donors-guide-to-the-cares-act-d07c7db6a5d9

Tax Efficiency & Giving:  https://medium.com/@aaronhamlin/your-guide-to-charitable-giving-and-taxes-a7c0f44c922

I've written an entire essay outlining how charitable giving and taxes work. You may find that helpful: https://medium.com/@aaronhamlin/your-guide-to-charitable-giving-and-taxes-a7c0f44c922

This is a good point! Katie very likely was considering that and right on target.

2
Katie S
4y
Yes, that's exactly correct.

Hi Katie!

This is a bit of a more complicated question with a number of options. If you like, you can contact me. aaron@electionscience.org. I write a lot in this space: https://www.aaronhamlin.com/articles/#philanthropy

Some options:

  • The gift route is one idea. Though this comes with some complexity as you mention.
  • You could invest the money and wait for longer than one year to be able to deduct the appreciation and the original investment.
  • If you have a match through your employer, this is a great route.
  • If you do clump your donations together, it's wor
... (read more)

In some states and municipalities the tax rate is higher due to local taxes. For example, in California the maximum marginal rate is 37% + 13.5% = 50.5%.

As someone who started a nonprofit to speed up pharmaceutical drug development, this quote rings very true:

"The amount of money you need to develop these technologies at the early stages is much less than what you need at the later stages, but obtaining money for the later stages, like clinical trials, is much easier because much of the de-risking has already happened. Since philanthropic money is only needed at the early stages, the answer to that question is a relatively tiny amount of money: 500 millions or even 250 millions over a period of 10 years, w

... (read more)

Disclaimer: I'm the executive director for The Center for Election Science.

There’s some good stuff in this post.

Excessive political polarisation, especially party polarisation in the US, makes it harder to reach consensus or a fair compromise, and undermines trust in public institutions. Efforts to avoid harmful long-term dynamics, and to strengthen democratic governance, are therefore of interest to effective altruists. One concrete lever is electoral reform.

Great stuff.

Still, I think the downsides of plurality voting outweigh its advantages,
... (read more)

Any new updates on sending me the old information? I pester others on giving publicly and want to be sure that I model well personally. I'm thinking of adding a section to my personal website about my current, past, and planned giving for accountability.

3
Michal_Trzesimiech
4y
Hi Aaron, I've just sent the data again. I used the email address associated with your eahub.org account. Please, write us at contact@eahub.org in case you did not receive it by now.

The poll included only those who intended to vote in the Democratic Primary.

It's very difficult to manage volunteers in this way, particularly given our small staff size. We tend to contract polling out. That said, it takes some expertise to sort through the data. Having staff for research would help us dramatically in both evaluating voting methods and measuring progress within cities that we've won in.

Caucus voting still has vote splitting as voters aren't able to support multiple candidates simultaneously. With approval voting, you can support multiple candidates simultaneously. We haven't analyzed caucus voting. We did do this poll, however, on the democratic primaries: https://www.electionscience.org/press-releases/new-poll-74-of-democratic-primary-voters-would-support-warren-for-president/

I'd like to see us do much more research and evaluation, but we currently don't have it in our budget to hire a Director of Research and support staff.

1
excel
4y
Aaron, thanks much for the update. Did the poll include non-democratic primary voters - e.g. registered republicans, etc.? A broader view of citizen views might offer additional insights. I agree that more research and evaluation is desirable. In fact, I think that robust evidence is critical for concepts like approval voting to gain traction and support. Could CES organize volunteers to do exit interviews at polling locations during primary and general elections? Capturing plurality, approval, and even other voting preferences during real elections could offer valuable insights. It would also raise the visibility and awareness of different voting systems. And it might also help citizens understand how different systems can affect elections. The exit polling could also ask people if they would optionally like to receive results (SMS, email.., [not tied to their vote choices]), thus additionally increasing awareness and offering the potential for future polls.

I'm curious about the work that Citizens' Climate Lobby is doing. They push for a carbon tax that comes back as a public dividend. They're doing lobbying now, but I'd be curious about how their odds might improve if tackled as a series of ballot initiatives.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/

Hi Larks,

On the moderate component, it's important to note a couple things: (1) moderate can change depending on what the population is and (2) sometimes we get a distorted view of what moderate is through the media.

Here, we're looking at a subgroup—people registered as democrats. So the population is a bit different. One of the platforms that Warren and Sanders are similar on that separate them from Biden is Medicare for All. It tends to poll rather well, particularly among democrats despite it being considered more extreme by the media.

O... (read more)

Replied at the bottom by accident. Starts with, "Hi, Adam."

Hi Adam,

Q: How would we know approval voting would give better policies? Why would the policies be good? And how do we know the policies would be good rather than merely popular?

A: I'm combining these ideas I pulled out because of their similarity. Approval voting tends to pull out the middle viewpoint (whatever that is for a particular electorate). And because viability is not an issue to gain initial support, it can provide a ramp for new ideas.

Is it possible that the popular opinion is bad? It sure is. But for this to be a real worry under approval... (read more)

Load more