All of Amber Dawn's Comments + Replies

FWIW I'm happy this question was asked publicly: I had no idea about this ruling (which is just extremely cruel and unhelpful) and this is a serious inclusion issue. 

5
Jason
2d
That's fair, although asking privately first doesn't mean not raising the issue publicly.  Because of how the Forum software works, many more people may see the original question rather than the organizer's response. (This is also true of many ways of raising issues.) So I think one upside of asking privately first, and posting the answer along with the concern, is ensuring that as many people as possible see the answer. Doing so also would prevent potential anxiety if the answer is that the (proposed?)[1] regulations would have no effect on non-new construction, which seems likely to be the case. 1. ^ It's unclear if anything has actually changed yet. In August 2023, it was said that "[t]he changes will be made through Building Regulations and accompanying guidance" (emphasis mine).

Yeah, this is a good point: you can go a long way with just commitment/agency/creativity/confidence/?

I mean, maybe people who are strong in those traits aren't really "mediocre", ?

But yeah, this is a good reminder that excellence isn't just one axis.

1
Augustin Portier
1d
A lack of initiative seems to be what makes a lot of people more mediocre than they otherwise would be? When you have a sense of agency, you start or join early projects, make small (or large) contributions to other people’s work, etc., and either you grow less mediocre from the experience, or you’re at least a mediocre EA making sure to try all the promising things to maximise their impact! (but then again, maybe I’m only saying that because it’s the area where I most feel my own limitations)
1
yanni kyriacos
6d
Just another example of "lean into your strength"
1
yanni kyriacos
6d
Yeah I'm in the top 1% for extraversion, I don't really feel shame or embarrassment and I have lots of initiative. Makes up for the mediocre IQ ;)
Answer by Amber DawnApr 11, 202445
12
0

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit recently. It’s not that I see myself as a “mediocre” EA, and in fact I work with EAs, so I am engaging with the community through my work. But I feel like a lot of the attitudes around career planning in EA sort of assume that you are formidable within a particular, rather narrow mould. You talk about mediocre EAs, but I’d also extend this to people who have strong skills and expertise that’s not obviously convertable into ‘working in the main EA cause areas’.

And the thing is, this kind of makes sense: like, if you... (read more)

3
David T
6d
I think this is a key part. "Main EA cause areas" does centre a lot on a small minority of people with very specific technical skills and the academic track record to participate in (especially if you're taking 80k Hours for guidance on that front)  But people can have a lot of impact in areas like fundraising with a completely different skillset (one that is less likely to benefit from a quantitative degree from an elite university) or earn well enough to give a lot without having any skills in research report writing, epidemiology or computer science. And if your background isn't one that the "do cutting edge research or make lots of money to give away" advice is tailored to at all, there are a lot of organizations doing a lot of effective good that really really, really need people with the right motivations allied to less niche skillsets. So I don't think people should feel they're not a 'success' if they end up doing GHD work rather than paying for it, and if their organization isn't particularly adjacent to EA they might have more scope to positively influence its impactfulness. Also, people shouldn't label themselves mediocre :) 
2
trevor1
6d
There's people who are good at EA-related thinking and people who are less good at that. There's people who are good at accumulating resume padding, and people who are less good at that. Although these are correlated, there will still be plenty of people who are good at EA thinking, but bad at accumulating resume padding. You can think of these people as having fallen through the cracks of the system. Advances in LLMs give me the impression that we're around ~2-5 years out from most EA orgs becoming much better at correctly identifying/drawing talent from this pool e.g. higher-quality summaries of posts and notes, or tracing upstream origins of original ideas. I'm less optimistic about solutions to conflict theory/value alignment issues, but advances in talent sourcing/measurement might give orgs more room to focus hiring/evaluation energy on character traits. If talent is easy to measure then there's less incentive to shrug and focus on candidates based on metrics that historically correlated with talent e.g. credentials.

a lot of the attitudes around career planning in EA sort of assume that you are formidable within a particular, rather narrow mould

This idea is something I've contemplated previously, but I really like that you put it into words.

If you will indulge me in rambling/ranting a little, I remember looking at 80k's guidance on careers in the area of Improving China-Western coordination a few years ago. China is an area that I know a bit about and wanted to make a core of my career.[1] I was disappointed that most of their recommendations were not realistic f... (read more)

Thanks for writing this! I’ve long been suspicious of this idea but haven’t got round to investigating the claim itself, and my skepticism of it, fully, so I super appreciate you kicking off this discussion.

I also identify with ‘do I disagree with this empirically or am I just uneasy with the vibes/frame, how to tease those apart, ?'

For people who broadly agree with the idea that Sarah is critiquing: what do you think is the best defence of it, arguing from first principles and data as much as possible?

I have a couple of other queries/scepticisms about the... (read more)

1
OscarD
1mo
On 2, I like this point about the distribution being shaped by the choices of others, I think it is quite true that if more people cared about impact it would be a lot harder to counterfatually achieve very high impact actions (because there would be so much 'competition' with other impact seekers). Reminiscent of how financial markets are pretty efficient because so many people are seeking to make money trading - I think if a similar number of people were looking to succeed in the 'impact market' there wouldn't be these super cost-effective low-hanging fruit left (lead elimination and the like). I think this then relates to point 1, as if there was an efficient impact market, it would be quite surprising for impact to be heavy-tailed. But as long as most people are focused on things other than impact I think my default assumption is it won't be too hard to find things that are a lot higher impact than the average. But I agree that this is not definitive and in areas like longtermist interventions where measurement is so hard we don't have empirical evidence of this.

I guess I weakly disagree: I think that motivation and already having roots in an issue really are a big part of personal fit - especially now that lots of "classic EA jobs" seem highly oversubscribed, even if the cause areas are more neglected than they should be. 

Like to make this more concrete, if your climate-change-motivated young EA was like 'well, now that I've learnt about AI risk, I guess I should pursue that career, ?', but they don't feel excited about it. Even if they have the innate ability to excel in AI safety, they will still have to o... (read more)

2
Lorenzo Buonanno
1mo
See Holden Karnofsky's aptitudes-based perspective.  I definitely agree that "some people scoping out their career options could benefit from first identifying high-impact career options, and only second thinking about which ones they might have a great personal fit for". But others could benefit from the opposite consideration, especially when taking into account moral and epistemic uncertainty about the relative value of different cause areas, and replaceability in areas where they would be limited to less specialized roles. I think there's a real tension between "it's best for everyone to just work on their favourite thing" and "it's best for everyone to go work at OpenAI on AI Policy," and people make mistakes in both directions, both in their own careers and when giving advice to others. I personally believe that there are enough high-impact opportunities in climate change (esp. considering air quality) and gender equality (esp. in a global sense) for them to be great areas in which to build aptitudes and do the most good, but it's definitely not a given. To be clear, I don't think this post says anything wrong, and I agree with it; although I don't see the same recommendation often made to people who work on mechanistic interpretability or cause-prioritization because they already liked it. (It's usually people criticizing the EA movement that say things like: "There are a lot of people in EA who just wanted a legitimate reason or excuse to sit around and talk about these big questions. But that made it feel like it’s a real job and they’re doing something good in the world instead of just sitting in a room and talking about philosophy.")

Thanks for writing this! As others have said, thank you for trying to do this valuable work even if it didn't work out. 

I haven't read everything so sorry if you mention this elsewhere but I'm confused about:

-'Of the three studies we found that measure the effects of facility-based postpartum family planning programming on pregnancy rates, two found no effect (Rohr et al. 2024; Coulibaly et al. 2021), and one found only a 0.7% decrease in short-spaced pregnancies (Guo et al. 2022).
This suggests that facility-based programs may have limi... (read more)

6
Sarah Eustis-Guthrie
1mo
Thanks for the kind words! This is a great question. There's a lot of uncertainty here but here's a few thoughts: 1. Postpartum insusceptibility is likely a decent chunk of it -- i.e. some women have "redundant" protection where they were already 100% protected from pregnancy, so the modern contraception does nothing in the short term, or they were mostly protected and the modern contraception only adds a small marginal benefit 2. For some of the studies, there was a higher contraceptive uptake at 12 months postpartum in the intervention group than the control but the contraceptive uptake in intervention and control groups was similar at 2 years postpartum -- it seems that some PPFP interventions are primarily shifting contraceptive uptake sooner, where postpartum insusceptibility is a particularly strong factor. 3. Behavior related to family planning is really complex and can be unpredictable/unexpected. For example, the women who  start using contraception because of a program are likely not a representative sample of the population; in fact, they may be skewed towards people who are at a lower risk of getting pregnant, because they're more careful in other ways. 

I think I've never gotten real feedback! It's possible I'm not promoting it often enough/not making specific requests of people, so people don't know it's an option.

This is a cool idea!

FYI, if you're excited about one of these ideas but struggling to actually get it drafted and posted, I can help with that. I wrote more here:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/4towuFeBfbGn8hJGs/amber-dawn-s-shortform?commentId=C6Z7u57FHh6nYqo4N

Since the season of Draft Amnesty is upon us, a bit of mild self-promotion: you can hire me to help you turn your unwritten thoughts and messy drafts into posts. 

For example:

-if some sections of your post are in your head but not yet on the page, I can help you draft them
-if you feel self-conscious about your draft, I can quickly review it and fix or flag the biggest issues
-if you feel ugh-y or uncertain about posting or finishing your post, or if you have anxieties about posting more generally, I can talk you through that
-I agree with the Forum team ... (read more)

Thanks for the shout-out! I just want to add that I also offer writing coaching, for those who want to learn how to make their own writing clearer and more effective. 

3
Arepo
2mo
No worries :) I've added 'and writing coach' to the OP, so it will also show up if I C&P the copy for future such advertising posts.

TLDR: freelance writer and editor interested in (mostly) part-time and contract work. I’m particularly interested in finding more clients for writing coaching (see below). 

Skills & background: I’m a freelance writer and editor: here’s my website and here’s my personal blog. You can also read many of my posts (both personal and collaborative) here on the Forum.

I’ve worked with several EAs and EA-adjacent people, writing or editing blogs, website content, internal organizational documents, podcast transcripts, fiction and more. I’ve a... (read more)

I don't agree that EA requires current venal systems to exist. For example, in a state communist society, or an anarchist society, or a libertarian society, you can still imagine people trying to work out how to do the most good with their resources. Of course current EAs work within current systems, but that just seems necessary to get anything done. 

I think it's "poor intellectual etiquette" to require people to comment along with votes: if I posting, I'm interested in whether readers find it valuable or not, even if they understandably don't want to prioritize explaining why they think I'm right or wrong. 

The evidence collected here doesn’t convince me that Alice and Chloe were lying, or necessarily that Ben Pace did a bad job investigating this. I regret contributing another long and involved comment to this discourse, but I feel like “actually assessing the claims” has been underrepresented compared to people going to the meta level, people discussing the post’s rhetoric, and people simply asserting that this evidence is conclusive proof that Alice and Chloe lied.

My process of thinking through this has made me wish more receipts from Alice and Chloe were ... (read more)

There are also Facebook groups for people with specific marginalised identities, which might also have some of that sort of content: e.g. there is one for LGBTQ people, and one for women and non-binary people. There may also be groups related to other identities: there are a bunch of "EA+X" related groups on FB so I'd say search there

There is a Facebook group on EA + diversity and inclusion: https://www.facebook.com/groups/diversityEA

 I've sometimes been interested in making a group on EA+ 'economic left' thought (socialism, anarchism, anti-capitalism and such) - I'll let you know if I ever do!

3
Omale D.M
4mo
Kindly notify me if you eventually make such a group
3
Joseph Quevedo
4mo
Hi Amber! That intersection is one I'm interested in. I'm writing to a few people to see if they already know of a community I join, and I will be updating the post and letting anyone interested know so they can join.
4
Joseph Lemien
4mo
If you ever end up making such a group, I'd love to be notified. :)
2
Amber Dawn
4mo
There are also Facebook groups for people with specific marginalised identities, which might also have some of that sort of content: e.g. there is one for LGBTQ people, and one for women and non-binary people. There may also be groups related to other identities: there are a bunch of "EA+X" related groups on FB so I'd say search there

Not sure if you know, but GiveDirectly did have a zakat fund last year https://fundraisers.givedirectly.org/campaigns/yemenzakat

1
Kaleem
4mo
Yep, thanks !

I think @Daniel_Wyrzykowski is working on something in this area

1
dEAsign
4mo
Pinging @Daniel_Wyrzykowski for comment

I think it's a minority opinion in EA but I also think it would be worth it for EAs to produce lists of the cost-effective charities/interventions within causes that EAs don't prioritize overall, recognizing that some people may care about effectiveness but will be emotionally attached to certain cause areas, or (as you say) will be motivated more by selfish reasons or by a narrower altruistic concern for their loved ones. This might be an especially good idea for people who have expertize in that area.

When I posted about this, people pointed out that SoGi... (read more)

Fund me to research interesting questions?
 

Here’s a list of questions/topics I’d be interested to research. If you’re also interested in one of these questions and would like to fund me to research it, get in touch: you can email at ambace@gmail.com, DM me on the Forum, or book a chat. It’s a bit of a long shot, but you don’t get what you don’t ask for XD

I’m also keen to hear about relevant work that already exists. I haven’t done much work yet on any of these questions, so it’s possible there’s already a lot of research on them that I’m not aware of.... (read more)

3
Ives Parr
5mo
Just a thought, but Alex Nowrasteh is a public figure whose primary focus is immigration policy, and he is an advocate for Open Borders, I believe. While you may not want to work at CATO, he may have some good ideas about what you can do. https://twitter.com/AlexNowrasteh

Thank you so much for this! I may get in touch to chat more about your experiences if I look into this further. The three organizations you mention are probably not a good fit for me because of location (I'm based in the UK), but maybe there are similar ones nearer me. 

I'm curious about why you focussed on high-skilled immigration. 

3
Luke Eure
5mo
For sure! Let me know if you want to chat. On "why high skill immigration", I wrote another blog post on my decision to focus on it: "I have a strong belief in the importance of immigrants to the US, both as a matter of fact (economically/ culturally/ scientifically) and as a matter of what the US should aspire to be. Living in Kenya makes this especially salient - it was so easy for me to move here and I think I am doing good. There are so many people here who can’t move to the US, and I think that they would do good. I think allowing immigration of skilled workers is pretty indisputably good for the US, those individuals, and (more disputably) for the world. This article captures arguments for high-skill immigration quite well. ... I personally would be much more in favor of lots more immigration of all kinds - low-skill and refugee as well. But I’m focusing on high-skill immigration since those are politically much tougher issues, high-skill immigration is more important from a scientific / economic progress perspective, and the fact that it seems likely that increased high-skill immigration makes countries more receptive to immigration of all kinds. A further clarification that I’m saying “immigration” here for simplicity, but I am including temporary residence status that enables people to work (e.g., H1B visas) in the scope of what I am working on."

I think you misunderstood me - I'm talking about my innate motivations, not what I would propose as a general norm.

I think part of the lack of motivation is that I in fact don't viscerally see (my) public outrage having much of an effect. Like, you're right that it plausibly does. But I'm strongly liberal/left and I've spent most of my life under right-wing governments, having my social circles being vocally outraged about all sorts of things, and having the governments basically seem to ignore this outrage. 

9
titotal
5mo
Yeah, to be clear, I'm not trying to shame individuals here.  One of the issues here is that the effectiveness of public outrage is highly dependent on how many people are riled up: A small group of outraged people will generally have zero effect on policy, but a very large group of outraged people has demonstrably real effects. This can make an EA ITN style analysis kinda weird: in order to be effective, a cause can't be neglected. 

Some thoughts on why I personally have done minimal 'calling for a ceasefire' type actions (I think I've signed a few petitions). I'm not sure all of these are reasonable, but like, here are the emotional or practical blocks I face:

1. Effectiveness: I agree that not everything I do has to be maximally effective. However, if something isn't fun, I want it to be at least a bit effective, and I've never been sure how effective letters to MPs etc are. I'd guess the more detailed and personal, the more effective - but in my experience, writing a well-researched... (read more)

8
titotal
5mo
I think this type of attitude would lead to bad outcomes if generalised.  For ease of discussion, let's imagine a hypothetical unambiguously horrible thing. Say tomorrow Joe Biden, with no justification, announces a bill placing all citizens of Albanian descent in internment camps.  Do you think such a policy would actually go through? Probably not. But how would it be prevented? Well, it would be prevented by everyone would kick up a storm. The airwaves would be dominated by people blasting the decision, everyone's lunchroom conversations would be like "what, that's insane", there would be massive protests, democratic funders would threaten to pull out, poll numbers would drop, the rank and file democrats would attack it, etc. Even democrat officials who hated Albanians for some reason would feel pressured to publicly stand against the policy, until the overwhelming pressure causes a drop in the policy. There are innumerable examples throughout the world of policies being dropped due to public outrage like this.  All this relies on people publicly stating X is bad, even if other people are already stating X is bad. In fact that's kind of the point! You need a critical mass of people to exert enough pressure to make changes. If everyone adopted the attitude "don't say X is bad if Y number of people are already saying it", then you never get more than Y people saying it, when you might need many more than that to make a difference. 

This doesn't directly address your questions in the post, but it addresses the titular question of 'which products should we prioritize avoiding?' Ozy Brennan suggests that 'you can eliminate 95% of the suffering associated with your diet simply by giving up farmed fish, poultry, and eggs'. I don't know if they took the associated insect suffering into account. 

https://thingofthings.substack.com/p/on-ameliatarianism

1
Mechaluke
5mo
Thanks. This does not seem to take into account insect suffering unfortunately, but it still includes some valuable information.

This is a complex of questions on the theme of 'did you actually enjoy your job, and is this important?'

When you were earning to give, did you enjoy your day-to-day work and find it motivating and meaningful, even if you expected your largest impact to be from your donations? If not, was that difficult, and how did you deal with it? Is your impression that other EtG-ers had/have a similar experience? In general, is it important for EtG-ers to feel positive about their work, or can one compensate for a less good working life by focusing on the positive impact of one's donations? 

5
Jeff Kaufman
5mo
Yes, I enjoyed it a lot. I like solving problems and doing good work, and in my various technical positions there's been a lot of that. I do think that's a common experience; ex: I think people who don't like their work should generally be thinking about whether there's something else they'd like more -- there are so many things you can do with your life that there's probably something you'd like better.
Answer by Amber DawnNov 07, 202321
7
0
4

First of all, I don't think suicide would be morally required even if you did cause lots of harm to animals. I think we have a right to live. 

Second, I don't think suicide is the best way for you to help animals. I'm not sure of your exact situation, but as you get older you're likely to get more independence from your parents and community, and at that point you can stop eating animals products. At that point you'll also have the whole of your life and career ahead of you. If you dedicate your career to animal welfare, that will easily outweigh the s... (read more)

'Use your connections, media, and social media to push your country's leaders to call for de-escalation and ceasefire. This costs you nothing but time' - what concretely do you suggest, for me and people like me? (I'm an ordinary person living in the UK). I think what usually stops me from taking particular action at times like this is a sense that nothing I can do will matter. I could post on social media that I want the conflict to stop, but I don't think anyone influential will notice or care.

I don't mean this as an excuse, I just get really frustrated ... (read more)

1
LiaH
6mo
Thanks for your reply; I may be naive, but I think even engaging in the conversation is a start. Even by replying to this post helps it to be seen and considered. I think that like you, every ‘ordinary person’ downplays their role. Human rights movements, including civil rights, anti-apartheid, and suffrage all happened because of actions of ordinary people. Sure, by yourself you may not have massive influence, but if you share with your social group, your friends and family may pick it up and share with their social group. I agree that time and energy aren’t infinite - I don’t see myself having the time to join one of the street demonstrations, for example, but retweeting pleas for a ceasefire takes seconds. For what it’s worth, I also take on board the moral force, and feel generally helpless. It is the reason why I am going to these various forums to which I belong, to try and gain traction. Sharing, upvoting, and commenting on this post would also help, as cheesy as the ask may be. Thank you

I don't really have an answer, but do you think this is a trend in mutual aid generally? (ie, that mutual aid networks are generally dominated by less wealthy and marginalised people) Anecdotally, I was in a UK-based mutual aid group and the admin made the same claim. It's possible though that your group and my former group just arose in online 'bubbles' that were dominated by these poorer demographic groups, and maybe there are other mutual aid groups where more wealthy folks do join and contribute. 

1
Paula
6mo
Thanks for your reply! I'm definitely noticing this in all the mutual aid spaces I'm involved in, and what concerns me the most is that most followers are very young (18-24 years old)! Obviously, these are not the kind of people that are able to commit to for example donating $100 to someone in need on a monthly basis. What I'm not sure about is whether this is because the networks I'm involved in are mostly based on Instagram, or whether it's a trend in mutual aid networks in general. Social media is ideally positioned to connect wealthy folks with those in need, though, and it doesn't seem to me that many wealthy white suburbanites are going out of their way to establish mutual aid networks offline locally. If somebody knows of a specific example of a mutual aid network in which wealthy white donors are predominantly active, though, I'd be super interested to hear about it!

Yeah, I think you might be right -like, it would mostly be covered by Philosophy, right? 

This seems relevant to this question: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a5JAiTdytou3Jg749/pascal-s-mugging-tiny-probabilities-of-vast-utilities. Disclaimer: I haven't read it.

I do think this is an interesting question: how to deal with tiny probabilities of great utilities?  

A couple of thoughts:
(1) On the object level: most religions are mutually exclusive. Also, I don't know that much about comparative religion, but I do know that Christianity has both a Hell, and doesn't allow you to worship other gods. So like, you probably have to pick one religion... (read more)

1
Daniel Birnbaum
6mo
I appreciate the comment! I think people generally make a mistake with this one by saying that the probabilities for atheist heaven and religious heaven are equal. Not saying that I have a particular opinion on what those probabilities may look like but more so that it would be weird to me if none of the religious arguments for particular religions bring you up even a tiny, little bit (say the mass revelation argument for Judaism, ect). Let me know what you think!

Yeah I don't have a strong opinion about whether they would accelerate it - I was just saying, even if some workers would support acceleration, other workers could work to slow it down.

One reason that developers might oppose slowing down AI is that it would put them out of work, wouldn't it? (Or threaten to). So if someone is not convinced that AI poses a big risk, or thinks that pausing isn't the best way to address the risk, then lobbying to slow down AI development would be a big cost for no obvious benefit. 

Thanks, I didn't have this on my radar! I'll try to get some iodised salt. 

Interesting question to think about! 

I'm not 100% sure, but I think I got more hard-working when I started university. I think this was basically because at school I found it easy to do well, and was also a teacher's pet/people pleaser, so I didn't really have the notion of 'doing less well at schoolwork than was physically possible' (ie 'half-assing it with all you've got'). But at university stuff got harder, obviously. So basically the bar for quality was raised but I didn't lower my expectations of myself accordingly: it didn't occur to me that I ... (read more)

Thanks for writing this; I've thought about this before, it seems like an under-explored (or under-exploited?) idea. 

Another point: even if ML engineers, software devs etc either could not be persuaded to unionize, or would accelerate AI development if they could, maybe other labour unions could still exert pressure. E.g., workers in the compute or hardware supply chain; HR, cleaners, ops, and other non-technical staff who work at AI companies? Perhaps strong labour unions in sectors that are NOT obviously related to AI could be powerful here, e.g. by... (read more)

3
dEAsign
7mo
To your first para - yes I wonder how unionised countries and relevant sectors are in bottlenecks in the compute supply chain - Netherlands, Japan and Taiwan. I don't know enough about the efficacy of boycotts to comment on the union led boycotts idea. I've raised this in response to another comment but I want to also address here the concern that workers who join a union would organise to accelerate the development of AI. I think that is very unlikely - the history of unions is a strong tradition of safety, slowing down or stopping work. I do not know an example of a union that has instead prioritised acceleration but there's probably some and it would get grey as you move into the workers self-management space.

Some thoughts on the general discussion:

(1) some people are vouching for Kat's character. This is useful information, but it's important to note that behaving badly is very compatible with having many strengths, treating one's friends well, etc. Many people who have done terrible things are extremely charismatic and charming, and even well-meaning or altruistic. It's hard to think bad things about one's friends, but unfortunately it's something we all need to be open to. (I've definitely in the past not taken negative allegations against someone as serious... (read more)

Just to clarify, nonlinear has now picked one claim and provided screen shots relevant to it, I’m not sure if you saw that.

I also want to clarify that I gave Ben a bunch of very specific examples of information in his post that I have evidence are false (responding to the version he sent me hours before publication). He hastily attempted to adjust his post to remove or tweak some of his claims right before publishing based on my discussing these errors with him. It’s a lot easier (and vastly less time consuming) to provide those examples in a private one-o... (read more)

Hi Amber. We were working as fast as we could on examples of the evidence. We have since posted this comment here, demonstrating Alice claiming that nobody in the house got her vegan food when we have evidence that we did. 

The claim in the post was “Alice claims she was sick with covid in a foreign country, with only the three Nonlinear cofounders around, but nobody in the house was willing to go out and get her vegan food, so she barely ate for 2 days.”. (Bolding added)

If you follow the link, you’ll see we have screenshots demonstratin... (read more)

(2) I think something odd about the comments claiming that this post is full of misinformation, is that they don't correct any of the misinformation. Like, I get that assembling receipts, evidence etc can take a while, and writing a full rebuttal of this would take a while. But if there are false claims in the post, pick one and say why it's false. 

Seconding this. 

I would be pretty interested to read a comment from nonlinear folks listing out everything that they believe to be false in the narrative as stated, even if they can't substantiate their counter-claims yet.

-19
Morpheus_Trinity
7mo

Massive thanks to Ben for writing this report and to Alice and Chloe for sharing their stories. Both took immense bravery.

There's a lot of discussion on the meta-level on this post. I want to say that I believe Alice and Chloe. I currently want to keep my distance from Nonlinear, Kat and Emerson, and would caution others against funding or working with them. I don't want to be part of a community that condones this sort of thing. 

I’m not and never have been super-involved in this affair, but I reached out to the former employees following the earlier ... (read more)

Thanks, this post is interesting. I've often experienced the frustration that EA seems to really emphasise the importance of cause prioritisation, but also that the resources for how to actually do it are pretty sparse. I've also fallen into the trap of 'apply for any EA job, it doesn't matter which', and have recently been thinking that this was a mistake and that I should invest more time in personal cause prioritization, including more strongly considering causes that EAs don't tend to prioritize, but that I think are important. 

I think the idea of... (read more)

2
CEvans
8mo
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Amber! I appreciate the honesty in saying both that you think people should think more about prioritisation and that you haven't always yourself. I have definitely been like this at times and I think it is good/important to be able to say both statements together. I would be happy/interested to talk through your thinking about prioritisation if you wanted. I have some other accounts of people finding me helpful to talk to about that kind of thing as it happens frequently in my community building work.   Re. (1), I agree that not everyone can be in the heavy tail of the community distribution, but I don't think there's strong reasons to think that people can't reach their "personal heavy tail" of their career options as per the graph. Ie. they might not all be able to have exceptional impact on a scale relative to the world/EA population, but they can have exceptional impact relative to different counterfactuals of them, and I think that is something still worth striving for.  For (1) and (2), I guess my model of the job market/impact opportunities is less static than I think your phrasing suggests you think about it. I don't think I conceive of impact opportunities as being a fixed number of "impactful" jobs at EA orgs that we need to fill, and I think you often don't need to be super "entrepreneurial" per your words to look beyond this. Perhaps ironically, I think your work is a great example of this (from what I understand). You use your particular writing skills to help other EAs in a way that could plausibly be very impactful, and this isn't necessarily a niche that would have been filled if you hadn't taken it. It seems like there are also lots of other career paths (eg. journalism, politics, earn to give etc) which have impact potential probably higher for many people than typical EA orgs, but aren't necessarily represented in viewing things the way I perceived you to be. Of course there are also different "levels" of being

This is such a genius idea, thank you!

Application forms for EA jobs often give an estimate for how long you should expect it to take; often these estimates are *wildly* too low ime. (And others I know have said this too). This is bad because it makes the estimates unhelpful for planning, and because it probably makes people feel bad about themselves, or worry that they're unusually slow, when they take longer than the estimate. 

Imo, if something involves any sort of writing from scratch, you should expect applicants to take at least an hour, and possibly more. (For context, I've seen appl... (read more)

5
David M
9mo
Thanks for saying this. This totally rhymes with my experience. I assume that if an application says it will take 15 minutes, I will probably need to spend at least an hour on it (assuming I actually care about getting the job).

Two (barely) related thoughts that I’ve wanted to bring up. Sorry if it’s super off topic.

Rethink priorities application for a role I applied for two years ago told applicants it was timed application and not to take over two hours. However there was no actual verification of this; it was simply a Google form. The first round I “cheated” and took about 4 hours. I made it to the second round. I felt really guilty about this so made sure not to go over on the second round. I didn’t finish all the questions and did not get to the next round. I was left with t... (read more)

As I have spent more time interacting with job application processes,[1] I lean more and more toward the opinion that broad/vague questions (such as ‘why are you interested in this job?’ and ‘why would you be a good fit?’) shouldn't be used. I'll ramble a bit about reasons, but I think the TLDR would be "poor applicant experience, and not very predictive of job performance."

On the organizational side, my observations are that there often isn't clear criteria for assessing / evaluating these questions[2], which means that the unofficial criteria often ... (read more)

As a former applicant for many EA org roles, I strongly agree! I recall spending on average 2-8 times longer on some initial applications than was estimated by many job ads. 

As someone who just helped drive a hiring process for Giving What We Can (for a Research Communicator role) I feel a bit daft having experienced it on the other side, but not having learned from it. I/we did not do a good enough job here. We had a few initial questions that we estimated would take ~20-60 minutes, and in retrospect I now imagine many candidates would have spent muc... (read more)

Just echoing the others that I like job listings - I've often applied for things because I saw them advertized on the Forum (or sent them to others who were looking)

This is a generous offering that will hopefully help a lot of people, so I feel uncomfortable posting a critical comment, but:

I don't like how this is framed as 'boost your mental health to grow your impact', + the repeated references to productivity. I worry that this perpetuates a belief (or alief or attitude) that EAs' individual wellbeing only matters inasmuch as it contributes to their impact and productivity. I disagree with this: we have a right to be happy regardless of our impact.

On the one hand, it's true that EAs care a lot about impact. Some ca... (read more)

Amber, thank you for this thoughtful, vulnerable, and beautifully articulated comment. I think that both you and Jason are right on target. 

I’m the Mental Health Program Manager at Rethink Wellbeing, and I’d like to offer my perspective on framing the program as a way to increase productivity. My thoughts are my own, not an official RW statement, but I have given my colleagues a chance to review this message before sending it.

I agree that basing one’s self-worth on one’s productivity can be a recipe for poor mental health (and rarely is effe... (read more)

7
Jason
9mo
One tension in meta spending is that it always needs to be squared with the principle of impartiality. Why is a valuable benefit being offered to EAs only, not to those with the greatest ability to benefit in the general population?  The most common justification is that investing in EAs ultimately yields more object-level impact, making the benefit to the individual EA only an incidental benefit. For this rationale, I might add a couple of italicized modifications to one of your statements to get: As a general matter, EAs' individual wellbeing is only a proper subject of special community spending [1] inasmuch as it contributes to their impact and productivity. That's uncomfortable to say, and I think care must be taken to avoid sending the message that one's wellbeing only has instrumental value. At the same time, I think it's critical to clearly link the justification for individual-benefitting meta activities to impartial ends.[2] Too many charitable endeavors have slowly turned away from their original focus into devoting a bunch of energy providing benefits for insiders. In my view, it's important to keep far away from that pathway. EA has chosen to heavily embrace meta pathways to impact, which poses heightened dangers of treading down the path of insider capture, and so warrants particular care in clearly identifying how programs that individually benefit insiders are nevertheless impartial.     1. ^ By "special community spending," I mean to exclude things like employee health insurance, which at least in the US is a form of compensation for services rendered. 2. ^ There could be other impartiality-approved rationales for a program benefitting individuals, such as a need to address a harm caused by certain types of EA-related actions/actors, or a harm incurred "in the line of EA duty" (broadly construed). Mental health issues stemming from worries about impact could be seen as the latter.

Thanks for this! This has occurred to me too - I've not heard labour power discussed as a lever in AI governance (though maybe I've just missed that discussion), and it seems like something people should at least consider, as strikes and labour organizing have effectively changed company norms/actions in the past. 

(So my aim was less to propose a norm, more to challenge an implicit preconception I've heard of (elsewhere in EA too!) - that a person who highly values honesty will, necessarily, end up hurting others' feelings. I don't really agree with "proposing norms" as an activity - I'm just reacting a certain way to certain people, and they can react to my reaction my changing their behaviour, or not doing that.

You seem to be worried that advocating for a norm that's already strong  critiques tends to lead to unfair punishments for transgressors. I don't real... (read more)

3
Timothy Chan
10mo
You seem to have written against proposing norms in the past. So apologies for my mistake and I'm glad that's not your intention.  To be clear, I think we should be free to write as we wish. Regardless, it still seems to me that voicing support for an already quite popular position on restricting expression comes with the risk of strengthening associated norms and bringing about the multiple downsides I mentioned. Among the downsides, yes, the worry that strengthening strong norms dealing with 'offensive' expression can lead to unfair punishments. This is not a baseless fear. There are historical examples of norms on restricting expression leading to unfair punishments; strong religious and political norms have allowed religious inquisitors and political regimes to suppress dissenting voices. I don't think EA is near the worst forms of it. In my previous comment, I was only pointing to a worrying trend towards that direction. We may (hopefully) never arrive at the destination. But along the way, there are more mild excesses. There have been a few instances where, I believe, the prevailing culture has resulted in disproportionate punishment either directly from the community or indirectly from external entities whose actions were, in part, enabled by the community's behavior. I probably won't discuss this too publicly but if necessary we can continue elsewhere.

Hmm, that's interesting. I guess I had seen both of those discourses as having similar messages - something like 'it doesn't matter how "effective" you are, common sense virtue is important!' or 'we are doing a bad job at protecting our community from bad actors in it, we should do better at this'. (Obv SBF's main bad impact wasn't on EA community members, but one of the early red flags was that a bunch of people left Alameda because he was bad to work with. And his actions and gendered harassment/abuse both harm the community through harming its reputatio... (read more)

1
Timothy Chan
10mo
It seems that you, correct me if I'm wrong, along with many who agree with you, are looking to further encourage a norm within this domain (on the basis of at least one example, i.e. the one example from the blog post, that challenged it). This might benefit some individuals by reducing their emotional distress. But strengthening such a norm that already seems strong/largely uncontroversial/to a large extent popular in the context of this community, especially one within this domain, makes me concerned in several ways: * Norms like these that target expression considered offensive seem to often evolve into/come in the form of restrictions that require enforcement. In these cases, enforcement often results in: * "Assholes"/"bad people" (and who may much later even be labeled "criminals" through sufficient gradual changes) endure excessive punishments, replacing what could have been more proportionate responses. Being outside of people's moral circles/making it low status to defend them makes it all too easy. * Well-meaning people get physically or materially (hence also emotionally) punished for honest mistakes. This may happen often - as it's easy for humans to cause accidental emotional harm. * Enforcement can be indeed more directed but this is not something we can easily control. Even if it is controlled locally, it can go out of control elsewhere. * Individuals who are sociopolitically savvy and manipulative may exploit their environment's aversion of relatively minor issues to their advantage. This allows them to appear virtuous without making substantial contributions or sacrifices. * At best, this is inefficient. At worst, to say the least - it's dangerous. * Restrictions in one domain often find their way into another. Particularly, it's not challenging to impose restrictions that are in line with illegitimate authority as well as power gained through intimidation. * This can lead people to comfortably dismiss individuals who raise valid

You don't have to be an asshole just because you value honesty 

In Kirsten's recent EA Lifestyles advice column (NB, paywalled), an anonymous EA woman reported being bothered about men in the community whose "radical honesty" leads them to make inappropriate or hurtful comments:
 


For example: radical honesty/saying true things (great sometimes, not fun when men decide to be super honest about their sexual attraction or the exact amount they’re willing to account for women’s comfort until the costs just “aren’t justified.” This kind of openness is u

... (read more)
4
Joseph Lemien
10mo
I have a framing that I often adopt that may be even more simple for people to use. I value honesty, but I also value not making other people uncomfortable. If I were fully honest I would very often tell women I meet "I find you attractive," but I don't because that would make them uncomfortable. For me, honesty should be bounded by consideration for others. So from my perspective what these people are doing (maximizing honesty) is very similar to naïve utilitarianism. Another framing is asking myself if what I want to say is true, is kind, is necessary, is helpful.
8
Guy Raveh
10mo
I also doubt that the men in question actually speak honestly and with the same immediacy. The choice to say this and not something else is motivated by things other than honesty.
9
Gemma Paterson
10mo
Reminds me of this scene from Glass Onion: https://twitter.com/KnivesOut/status/1611769636973854723?s=20 "It's a dangerous thing to mistake speaking without thought for speaking the truth."

I struggle reconciling implied takeaways from two discourse crises on EA forum. 

When I read SBF stuff, I get the sense that we want to increase integrity-maxing unstrategic practices.

When I read about male misbehavior, it is suggested that we want to decrease adjacency to the radical honesty cluster of practices. 

I think it might feel obvious enough to me which takeaway should apply to which cases, but I still fear the overall message may be confused and I don't know if expectations are being set appropriately in a way that lots of people can be expected to converge on. 

I would have died as a baby - I needed a complex heart operation.

I'm pretty sceptical that sexual liberalism is at fault, though maybe some aspects of sexually-liberal culture don't help. There's just as much sexual abuse and assault in sexually-conservative communities, now and in the past, and maybe more. 

Load more