I'd be interested in learning more on how to have the biggest impact when one wants to work towards systemic change: What are examples of EA or non-EA orgs who deliberately and successfully caused systemic change? What can we learn from those? Are there strategies/approaches that work particularly well?
And I am also curious about how one estimates the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed towards systemic changes. I suspect the reason systemic change as a cause area is less visible in EA is because it is hard to measure. But work against global catastrophic risks show that interventions can be hard to measure and still be judged as effective. So that alone shouldn't be enough to rule it out. But it probably helps to be able to make more precise predictions for the cost-effectiveness of systemic change intervention. So how do we get better at that? Is there research about that?
"For example, an organisation fighting malaria might identify the lack of a fair distribution of resources to afford medicine and protective equipment as one root cause of the problem."
The most plausible, to me, root cause solution for this problem is a gene drive, which is not systemic change.
This is a good example to show that problems can have more than one root cause. Children dying of malaria is both caused by Aedes aegypti existing and by the children's parents not being able to access or afford treatment.
I just looked up the definition of root cause and Wikipedia says "A factor is considered the root cause of a problem if removing it prevents the problem from recurring." With that definition I can think of even more root causes for children dying of malaria. In fact most problems in the world probably have multiple root causes.
And as your example shows, different root causes can vary a lot in cost-effectiveness. In this case the gene drive seems more cost-effective. On the other hand, getting rid of poverty or having better healthcare infrastructure doesn't only solve malaria deaths but also does a lot more good in other ways.
I might have found a regression with the new post page when reading sequences: The "previous post" and "next post" buttons on the bottom are missing. For example in this post. Only the left and right arrows on the top and the possibility to go to the sequence overview between the two arrows are still there. I have also spotted this post, where the part at the top is also missing. It should be part of the same sequence.
The leading AI systems are now able to engage in limited conversation, solve college-level maths problems, explain jokes, generate extremely realistic images from text, and do basic coding.
This is a little outdated. The progress in AI is so fast that texts about AI capabilities become obsolete quite quickly.
AIs are now able to pass the Turing Test, win the International Math Olympiad, solve math problems that haven't been solved by anyone before, and produce a significant percentage of all new code.
Also, the number of people working on AI capabilities and AI safety have both increased significantly. I don't know if the ratio between them is still similar, but my guess would be that it is.
Thanks for this post. I especially found your point on treating the post-FTX challenge as a trust problem valuable. I always had a slightly bad feeling about this trend of trying to minimize reputational risks and distancing oneself from stuff that others might find controversial. After reading your post I have now more clarity regarding that.
Focussing on outward appearance comes with the risk of losing intellectual honesty and might not even be very effective at improving outward appearance as it is only treating the symptoms and might even seem deceptive or as if we had something to hide. I am not saying that one shouldn't care about outward appearance at all, but maybe it shouldn't be the main focus of dealing with the post-FTX challenge but rather thinking about it as a trust problem should be. The main priority should be to ensure that our community is worthy of our trust and that it creates value. I am aware that this is already happening to some degree, and I am not sure if it is possible to judge how much of it is by looking how much is publicly talked about it is, but if it is then outward appearance of EA is currently too much of a focus and making sure that EA is trustworthy, honest and true to its principles maybe deserves a little more attention.
Having a community worthy of our trust and one that is true to its original principles gets harder the larger the community gets, and it also gets harder when the community grows faster. I get the point that growing slower comes at a cost and more good can be done with a larger community but when slower growth means a healthier community that exists in a meaningful way for longer, then maybe that is a price we should be willing to pay.
Duncan Sabien's "Make more Grayspaces" is also interesting in this context. It describes a possible solution for how a growing community can stay true to its values. I am not sure if this solution would work for EA, but I found the description of the problem quite compelling.
I did, but I must confess that it wasn't for me. For some reason I found it really annoying to hear the two AI voices so often talk about their reactions or how they "felt" about a particular part of the book. I already find it annoying when humans do that instead of talking about the actual topic but when AIs fake that to appear more human like I find it quite irritating.
Not yet. To give the podcast the best chance, I'll start with a book summary that I think I'll enjoy. Once I've finished it, I'll decide how to proceed.
I am not sure what your point is regarding encountering those opinions in the wild. After listening to the book summary, it doesn't get easier to control how long I immerse myself in this in a conversation. But I don't think that is what you mean.
I'd be interested in learning more on how to have the biggest impact when one wants to work towards systemic change: What are examples of EA or non-EA orgs who deliberately and successfully caused systemic change? What can we learn from those? Are there strategies/approaches that work particularly well?
And I am also curious about how one estimates the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed towards systemic changes. I suspect the reason systemic change as a cause area is less visible in EA is because it is hard to measure. But work against global catastrophic risks show that interventions can be hard to measure and still be judged as effective. So that alone shouldn't be enough to rule it out. But it probably helps to be able to make more precise predictions for the cost-effectiveness of systemic change intervention. So how do we get better at that? Is there research about that?
This is a good example to show that problems can have more than one root cause. Children dying of malaria is both caused by Aedes aegypti existing and by the children's parents not being able to access or afford treatment.
I just looked up the definition of root cause and Wikipedia says "A factor is considered the root cause of a problem if removing it prevents the problem from recurring." With that definition I can think of even more root causes for children dying of malaria. In fact most problems in the world probably have multiple root causes.
And as your example shows, different root causes can vary a lot in cost-effectiveness. In this case the gene drive seems more cost-effective. On the other hand, getting rid of poverty or having better healthcare infrastructure doesn't only solve malaria deaths but also does a lot more good in other ways.
The standard comment sorting ignores what I have set in the settings as standard comment sorting and instead always sorts by New & upvoted by default.
I might have found a regression with the new post page when reading sequences: The "previous post" and "next post" buttons on the bottom are missing. For example in this post. Only the left and right arrows on the top and the possibility to go to the sequence overview between the two arrows are still there. I have also spotted this post, where the part at the top is also missing. It should be part of the same sequence.
This is a little outdated. The progress in AI is so fast that texts about AI capabilities become obsolete quite quickly.
AIs are now able to pass the Turing Test, win the International Math Olympiad, solve math problems that haven't been solved by anyone before, and produce a significant percentage of all new code.
Also, the number of people working on AI capabilities and AI safety have both increased significantly. I don't know if the ratio between them is still similar, but my guess would be that it is.
Thanks for this post. I especially found your point on treating the post-FTX challenge as a trust problem valuable. I always had a slightly bad feeling about this trend of trying to minimize reputational risks and distancing oneself from stuff that others might find controversial. After reading your post I have now more clarity regarding that.
Focussing on outward appearance comes with the risk of losing intellectual honesty and might not even be very effective at improving outward appearance as it is only treating the symptoms and might even seem deceptive or as if we had something to hide. I am not saying that one shouldn't care about outward appearance at all, but maybe it shouldn't be the main focus of dealing with the post-FTX challenge but rather thinking about it as a trust problem should be. The main priority should be to ensure that our community is worthy of our trust and that it creates value. I am aware that this is already happening to some degree, and I am not sure if it is possible to judge how much of it is by looking how much is publicly talked about it is, but if it is then outward appearance of EA is currently too much of a focus and making sure that EA is trustworthy, honest and true to its principles maybe deserves a little more attention.
Having a community worthy of our trust and one that is true to its original principles gets harder the larger the community gets, and it also gets harder when the community grows faster. I get the point that growing slower comes at a cost and more good can be done with a larger community but when slower growth means a healthier community that exists in a meaningful way for longer, then maybe that is a price we should be willing to pay.
Duncan Sabien's "Make more Grayspaces" is also interesting in this context. It describes a possible solution for how a growing community can stay true to its values. I am not sure if this solution would work for EA, but I found the description of the problem quite compelling.
I did, but I must confess that it wasn't for me. For some reason I found it really annoying to hear the two AI voices so often talk about their reactions or how they "felt" about a particular part of the book. I already find it annoying when humans do that instead of talking about the actual topic but when AIs fake that to appear more human like I find it quite irritating.
Sorry, I meant to write "ideas are more uncomfortable when they are new". Not because.
Yes, that is what I meant.
Ok, so your point is that ideas are more uncomfortable when they are new and when I already heard them, I'll find them less uncomfortable?
Not yet. To give the podcast the best chance, I'll start with a book summary that I think I'll enjoy. Once I've finished it, I'll decide how to proceed.
I am not sure what your point is regarding encountering those opinions in the wild. After listening to the book summary, it doesn't get easier to control how long I immerse myself in this in a conversation. But I don't think that is what you mean.