Thanks for cross posting this Peter. I may be biased but I think this is a great initiative.

Do you have any info about the kinds of people who are reading a newsletter like this? Eg, are they mostly EAs who are interested in behaviour science, or mostly behaviour scientists who are interested in EA?

Akhil, thanks for this post. Your post happened to coincide with an email I received about a new article and associated webinar, "Centring Equity in Collective Impact". You and others in this space might find it relevant:

• link to webinar: https://fsg.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_8BnpDWUeR_OdM7A_k7iebQ
• link to article: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/centering_equity_in_collective_impact

I use Feedly to follow several RSS feeds, including everything from the EA forum, LessWrong, etc. This lets me read more EA-adjacent/aligned content than if I visited each website infrequently because Feedly has an easy to use app on my phone.  

I liken it to a 'fire hose' in that I get everything, including all the personal blogs and low-effort content that would otherwise be hidden by the website sorting algorithm. There's also no (displayed) information in Feedly about the number or content of comments - instead I need to open each interesting post to find out if someone has commented on it. 

For some posts, the post content is the most valuable. In other posts, the commentary is the most valuable, and Feedly/RSS does a bad job of exposing this value to me easily. I also find that engagement is highest within the first 1-2 days of a post, but takes several hours to start. 

All of this is to say that I think the 'right' feed is probably still something like one or more RSS feeds - especially given their interoperability and ease of use - but that the user experience is likely to be highly variable depending on their needs and appetite for other- vs self-curation of what is in the feed.

Thanks for this list. Your EA group link for Focusmate just goes to the generic dashboard. Do you have an updated link you can share?

If you're comfortable sharing these resources on prioritisation and coordination, please also let me know about them.

I'm a researcher based in Australia and have some experience working with open/meta science. Happy to talk this through with you if helpful, precommitting to not take any of your money.

Quick answers, most of which are not one off, donation target ideas but instead would require a fair amount of setup and maintenance.

• $250,000 would be enough to support a program for disseminating open / meta science practices in Australian graduate students (within a broad discipline), if you had a trusted person to administrate it.

• you could have a prize for best open access paper published by a non PhD

• you could fund a conference such as AIMOS https://aimos.community/ (I have no affiliation and no knowledge of how effective this is)

• you could ask the Centre for open science people how to effectively spend the money

Friendly suggestions: expand CHAI in the first instance of a post, for readers who are not as familiar with the acronym; clarify the month and day (eg Nov 11) for readers outside the United States

Thanks Markus.

I read the US public opinion on AI report with interest, and thought to replicate this in Australia. Do you think having local primary data is relevant for influence?

Do you think the marginal value lies in primary social science research or in aggregation and synthesis (eg rapid and limited systematic review) of existing research on public attitudes and support for general purpose / transformative technologies?

I really appreciate this, Michelle. I'm glad to see this kind of piece on the EA forum.

If you haven't already, please upload a version to the open science framework as a preprint: https://osf.io/preprints