All of atlasunshrugged's Comments + Replies

I actually think there was a major lawsuit about agreements between organizations not to poach one another's employees. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/

Can't wait for EAGuantanamo! Kidding of course, but I'm not sure how valuable it'd be given how difficult it is for former convicts to get jobs (e.g. low expected earnings to contribute to high impact charities down the line). But for groups doing work on recidivism and the like, I do hope they are recruiting out of pools of ex-cons to really understand what the problems are that folks face.

At this point I'd think higher interest rates have knocked many overinflated stonks down to a reasonable level (at least based on the bloodbath that is the tech stock market over the last few months), that's not to say of course that other risks haven't been adequately priced in... like the most valuable company in the world for instance being hugely dependent on the manufacturing of a geopolitical competitor to the U.S.

My understanding is that persistent higher inflation may actually be very good for the U.S. government as it'll essentially erode the debt as inflation eats away at the value of the loans, so that should be taken into account. Of course, it's bad for stability, especially if you runaway inflation, but with high employment mitigating some of the downside this seems like a major positive factor for the U.S. gov given the amount of debt it holds. 

 

Edit to add: Thanks for taking the time to write this up, found it enjoyable and was a fun thought expe... (read more)

I think if you talk to a reporter, unless you explicitly note before beginning that the conversation is off the record and they agree to it, you have to assume that anything you say can be shared.

Sounds like he thought he was talking to Kelsey as a friend and not in her professional capacity.

Maybe this is him referencing the article? 

Last night I talked to a friend of mine. They published my messages. Those were not intended to be public, but I guess they are now.  https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1593014934207881218

I'm not sure I understand why this is the best donation target, even for people who want to donate specifically to a political race. For one, it seems all prediction markets and forecasters like FiveThirtyEight give R's a ~75%+ chance of taking back the house, so this single race seems unlikely to be particularly impactful. What's more, the Salinas Erickson race seems relatively safe for D's and I've seen no mention of it anywhere being a tossup. This feels like something I'd get in a campaign email down to the closing line pulling on heartstrings and then... (read more)

2
Zach Stein-Perlman
2y
(It's by no means safely Democratic, but it's substantially more Democratic than the median.)

I mostly agree but a few counterpoints (I've been in DC for about 1yr total now). 

  1. The summers are absolutely miserable if you dislike humidity. 
  2.  In general compared to SF and even Berlin I've found people (outside of the EA community) to be much more reactive and zero sum in their thinking than people who dream big and have visions of the future they want to build towards.
  3. Echoing the company town comment- I feel like every conversation is about politics/policy/international affairs, which bugged me in SF about tech (there's so much more to l
... (read more)

There are substantial kickbacks (called “site commissions”), where a large percentage of the per-minute rates are paid to the facilities for the right to the contract. A typical rate is 50%, and these can run as high as 96%. Given they get a percentage of every dollar spent, the facilities also have an incentive to keep costs high to increase their revenue, not to give the end consumer the lowest cost of connection.

Does any of this money also get sent back to the county/state too? Just wondering what other stakeholders are benefitting from the status quo.

&... (read more)

An offshoot of lead emission in the atmosphere might be the work being done at LEEP (Lead Exposure Elimination Project) https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ktN29JneoQCYktqih/seven-more-learnings-from-leep

Thanks! Sorry for the ignorance but for #4 then, how would you go about figuring out 1) what job you would be good at if you joined (and in which branch to try to join) and then 2) how to make sure that you actually were assigned to that job when you do join?

 

An unrelated q- is there any additional upside joining a new branch like Space Force?

3
shawzach
2y
Still useful to talk with a recruiter and ask specific questions, but they have their own priorities and are going to shuffle you into whatever slots they get the most points for. Looking at the websites of the military services which detail different jobs is helpful to get a baseline. But the most helpful thing will be talking to people who have done various jobs and been in various units. Your unit and the leadership are comparably important in the Guard/Reserves to the job you are doing. You can only figure that out by talking with people and finding a good unit.   There might be some new Space Force opportunities to build things out because they are so new, but there will be growing pains as well as they figure out how to actually add value without stepping on other branch's toes. Generally your job, unit, and leadership are the most important regardless of the service, though there are various stereotypes over different services which may hold true in more situations than not (Molly gets at some of them above).

This was a fantastic read, thank you for putting it together! Have you seen many situations where it makes sense for someone later in their career to join the military? Almost every person I've met who served started relatively early in their career rather than joining later. Do you think there are negative potential career impacts for people who work in specific fields (e.g. tech)? While I'm in DC doing policy work now and military service is venerated by almost everyone, I think it was quite rare to meet someone when I worked in tech in SF that had serve... (read more)

5
shawzach
2y
1. Yes, from an EA perspective definitely. 2. No, CSET did research showing that the chasm between Silicon Valley and DoD is not that significant. The perception is mainly based on the one Google/Project Maven issue that got a lot of press. The opportunities in tech national security (especially within the government - major opportunities) have greater upside than those few companies that might not want you on their team. Also legally there are protections for veterans and companies have legal incentives to hire vets. It is more a way to stand out than to scare people off. 3. There is always a risk that you'll be in a position where you are working on a project or receive an order to do something that you'd rather not. But I'd say that risk is very low for doing things that are potentially harmful on a large scale, and you have opportunities to further reduce the risk based on your job, your unit, who you know who's higher up, etc. If I had to guess, the very likely/100% upsides of joining are orders of magnitude higher. Even if you're just thinking about the upsides of potentially being in a position to make a really important good decision (vs. the counterfactual other person in that situation), the upsides probably outweigh the downsides (but that is not the main reason from an EA perspective to join - it's more the career capital). 4. Generally don't trust a recruiter unless either you have to or you get them to talk with someone who has been in the military before and who can get another recruiter's take on what the recruiter you are talking to is offering you.

Also thought it was really interesting, there's an ongoing thread on Hacker News which is also a good place to look to see an outside view of how people perceive EA in a (usually) thoughtful way

 

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32386984

3
Sharmake
2y
Notably, I note a lot of anger around AI and longtermism being such a core subject of EA, calling EA unrealistic about it.
4
Dem0sthenes
2y
Hacker News is more adjacent (digitally native, young, affluent) than you might think. It is a bit different than EA but not as different as say the crowd in a Teamsters union hall or oil derrick in the North Sea.

Not currently funded by an EA grant, but I am a fellow for an organization the classifies me as an independent contractor (IC), which in essence is what most people who receive a grant are likely to be (in the eyes of the IRS anyways). This is obviously not tax advice, always consult an attorney, etc. but as someone who has done this a few times in their career, I wanted to share some high level thoughts (also, this is going to be very focused on the U.S. and as an American taxpayer).

  • Is a 50K grant as an IC better or worse than 50K as a W-2 (traditional) e
... (read more)
1
Linda Linsefors
1y
Really? You need professional legal advise to be an independent contractor in the US?

This was really interesting, thank you for writing @iamasockpuppet.  I don't agree with all assumptions but think many of them are logical and express similar concerns to some I had during the Carrick campaign. One point I was hoping you could expand on was the below:

"The *concrete outcome* of Effective Altruism exercising direct political power would be for EA to become a faction of the Democratic party." In which you say that R EA's would then not be interested in joining EA (or at least engaging in EA politics) but to me that seems off because as y... (read more)

6
iamasockpuppet
2y
I agree that EA politicians wouldn't prioritize the issues that they care less about; but they wouldn't be able to avoid taking a stance on them, most straightforwardly by voting on bills. There are no national single-issue politicians in American politics, every vote is a vote for a coalition, and EA would be a member of such a coalition. EA would be repeatedly advocating for the election of politicians who consistently take one side of the issues, and would therefore correctly be associated with that side. This assumes that the EA's in question are already committed EA's with strong alignment on the EA cause areas. There's at least two important cases where that might not be true: * EA's might want to work with somebody who's not themself an EA; for example, every current member of Congress. * Nobody is born as an EA; EA needs to recruit people to become EA's. I do agree that, while some EA's with opposing politics might bounce out of EA as a result, the number would be pretty negligible, most would probably remain. I agree.

That's really interesting, as an American who has been active in EA in the US and Europe I usually felt that England had an outsized weighting on EA stuff, not the U.S.

2
Kaleem
2y
Yeah I think I should have been more accurate, I think by saying "US EAs" I really meant "US, EU, and UK EAs"

I can say that I failed at what I would consider a high risk, high reward project. I was a member of a charity entrepreneurship cohort and worked on an a nonprofit idea focused on advocacy for a pigouvian tax but unfortunately couldn't really get things off the ground for a few reasons. That said, I still highly recommend trying something ambitious. That failure taught me a lot and got me more into the policy realm which helped pave the way for my current work doing policy advisory in Congress which I think is relatively high impact. 

As someone working in a Republican office in Congress doing tech policy this really resonates with me. I think for folks who are libertarian or just apolitical/ambivalent generally about culture war issues then this is a solid way to go, especially on the tech policy front which skews heavily D and means it'll be easier to stand out. As a warning though, these labels stick, so just think hard about whether you're ready to commit to a pathway (not that you can never cross the aisle, it just becomes significantly more difficult to do so after a few years in one party).

Posting a comment because I expect people who read this to also be somewhat entrepreneurially aligned. If anyone is interested in the below areas and wants to kick ideas around, potentially cofounder match, etc. I'd love to chat as I'm considering doing something in one of these spaces after I finish my fellowship in Congress:

  • Charter Cities (e.g. SEZ near the U.S.); especially those that could also serve as a stopgap while other orgs advocate for domestic immigration reform for critical areas (e.g. AI researchers from India or China who would have a hard t
... (read more)

I think the lead exposure project is quite interesting but isn't this already done by LEEP which spun out of Charity Entrepreneurship a while back? What's the rationale for another organization here? Or is RoryFenton already involved in that project.

Hey!

LEEP is indeed working on this -- I mentioned them in my original comment but I have no connection to them. I was thinking of a campaign on the $100M/year scale, comparable to Bloomberg's work on tobacco. That could definitely be  LEEP,  my sense (from quick Googling and based purely on the small size of their reported team) is they would have to grow a lot to take on that kind of funding, so there could also be a place for a large existing advocacy org pivoting to lead elimination. I have not at all thought through the implementation side of things here. 

Are there any other products that could be leveraged by current cryonics facilities that could also help decrease those costs in the interim before moving to plastination? I know sperm storage is becoming increasingly popular; maybe there are other products that someone already interested in cryonics would also be interested in that could leverage the facility?

Not sure if you considered it as a potential benefit but my understanding is that right now the government and health care systems/insurers spend an inordinate amount of money mainly to extend life for the last 5-10 years of an elderly person now. This imposes broad costs on state run health systems and private insurers which need to charge people more from younger ages to cover these expected costs. It's possible that more elderly people are inclined to engage in cryopreservation just before they enter this "sickly period" (for lack of a better term) if t... (read more)

3
AndyMcKenzie
2y
Thanks for your kind comments! Much appreciated.  I agree that brain preservation could potentially be cost-saving for healthcare systems if combined with medical aid in dying and people were interested in this rather than pursuing painful care that is likely futile. However, my guess is that healthcare systems in general are not very cost-efficient from an effective altruism perspective, so it's hard to see how this would affect overall QALYs. 

Echoing Ian's comment, I'd appreciate if you could share more information about your background. I understand that you want to remain anonymous but maybe you could share how you're connected to folks on the transition team, potentially how influential you expect your recommendations to be, if there are any departments you have more or less influence in, etc. so folks can judge whether they want to expose all of this info to you.

Sure, I'm happy to share a bit more about myself,  and I will also clarify how I intended the google doc to work.  

I'm a career civil servant in DC,  I work at a cabinet-level agency where I've been for approximately 10 years.  I am not a member of the transition team (see response to Ian, above).  My connections to the incoming administration are through current and former colleagues, friends, and various folks I know here in DC who I'd classify mostly as "weak ties."[1]    

My goal for the google doc is for it to fu... (read more)

Agreed, from the foreign policy folks I follow who focus on the region that one seems especially dangerous, especially if you care about stopping the usage of nuclear weapons which would be somewhat more likely in an India v. Pakistan conflict given it's likely Pakistan would lose a war waged with purely conventional weaponry

Because of the likelihood of it occurring or because the potential for human/economic damage or both? It also is concerning to me given that India would probably be somewhat more inclined to use nuclear weapons in a China v. India conflict than America would be (although who knows with the current admin), especially if Pakistan started making moves at the same time as India was focused on China. But I'm not sure why China would really push a conflict, that means they have to move huge amounts of men and materials to the west and potentially leave an o... (read more)

No worries, I was just curious - I've tried to find data on things like projections of lives lost in combat between the US and China and can't find anything good (best I found was a Rand study from a few years ago but it didn't really give projections of actual deaths) so was curious if you had gotten your hands on that data to make your projections. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I had assumed China/US conflict but makes sense - probably anyone with nuclear capabilities who gets into a serious foreign entanglement will create an extremely dangerous situation for the world.

8
MichaelA
4y
I'd agree with this. But partly due to what nuclear capabilities correlates with, rather than solely due to the nuclear capabilities themselves. Off the top of my head, I see at least 4 mechanisms by which great power war could reduce the expected value of the long-term future: * Risk of nuclear war and thereby of nuclear winter (this seems to be the implied focus of your comment) * Increased chances of unsafe development of emerging technologies (or, similarly, less willingness/ability to cooperate on ensuring that technological development proceeds safely) * As this post notes, "In addition, mistrust between major powers makes it harder for them to coordinate on arms control or ensure the safe use of new technologies." * Increased chance of robust totalitarianism (analogous to how it seems plausible that, had the Nazis won WWII, that regime would've spread fairly globally and lasted fairly a long time) * Residual chance of various bad things if there's a violent disruption of current trends, which seem to be unusually good (see The long-term significance of reducing global catastrophic risks by Beckstead) Speaking as very much a non-expert, all 4 of those mechanisms seem important to me, without one of them standing out as far more important than the others. (Though I think I'd very weakly expect the first two to be more important than the last two.) If that's true, and if someone had previously focused primarily on the risks of nuclear winter, this might suggest that person should increase their level of concern about great power conflict, including about conflicts that are very unlikely to result in nuclear weapons use. (I assume there's been EA and non-EA work on this general topic that I haven't seen - this is just my quick take.)

For the author, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the reference to Great Power Conflict is most likely the U.S. vs. China - is that right (just inferring based on the Graham Allison recommendation)? I'm curious if you a more in depth rationale or data available for this? Mostly, I'm curious about some other outcomes and how harmful they are - for instance, what happens if we avoid great power conflict but in doing so allow China to become the dominant world power and spread their authoritarian governance model even further than they do tod... (read more)

6
NunoSempere
4y
India v. China conflict is perhaps more immediately worrying than US v. China.
3
Arden Koehler
4y
Hey atlasunshrugged, I'm afraid I don't know the answers to your specific questions. I agree that there are things worse than great power conflict, and perhaps China becoming the dominent world power could be one of those things. FWIW although war between the US and China does seem like one of the more worrying scinarios at the moment, I meant the description problem to be broader than that and include any great power war.

In the first paragraph you say "Effective Altruists are often not leftist, because leftist politics may be incorrect." Can you expand on what leftist politics are incorrect and how you judge what is correct or not?

2
kbog
4y
See http://bit.ly/ea-css , specifically sections "Capitalism and Socialism", "taxation and budget" (wealth and corporate tax), "Trade", "Housing Policy" (rent control), "Healthcare" (drug price controls), and "Education Policy".

Ditto on this - I went through the program and am working on tobacco policy, happy to chat with folks who want to ask about what it's like

I second this - really interesting post and I would love to hear much more about this!

Just wanted to write that I've seen your comment, I'm on the road and don't have time to respond well now but will try in the next week or so.


Hi, when you say I don't seem to take that into account, do you mean something on the blog post I shared? That's not my research, just some of what I'm using as the basis for considering an intervention into taxation but happy to comment on what I can or at least link to other studies I've read that have been useful too if you're interested.

It depends on your perspective I suppose, and if you think that regulating/taxing anything is paternalistic and believe that everyone is rational, not addicted, truly knows the health effects, e... (read more)

7
Larks
5y
I think you might be mistaken on several counts: 1) not all taxes are paternalistic (e.g. pigouvian taxes), but tobacco taxes almost definitely are. wikipedia: rather, the debate is about whether or not paternalism is justified (in this instance). In both this comment and the grandparent I've implicitly assumed that paternalism can be justified, but you're right that there are libertarian arguments that paternalism is essentially always wrong. You might also enjoy Robin's recent writing on paternalism, though it doesn't directly bare on this argument; unsurprisingly he concludes it is primarily about status. 2) People don't have to be fully rational for their decisions to have information about welfare. If full rationality were required then no decision ever would satisfy! While it seems clear that humans are not 100% rational, there is still some logic to people's actions. Indeed, models of rational addiction have been around for decades; it is definitely not true to say that addiction invalidates any inference about consumer welfare. See for example Becker and Murphy (1988). 3) 'truly knows the health effects' is again not required. For example, if people had noisy but unbiased estimates of the health impacts, some would over-consume and some would under-consume, and on average, tobacco taxation would not be welfare enhancing. If lack of knowledge is the issue, the appropriate response is to provide the information, not to tax it. 4) Consumer surplus should be taken into account for everyone regardless of whether or not on the whole smoking is optimal. It is an element in the cost-benefit calculation (probably the largest on one side of the equation). It might be larger or smaller for different people, in different circumstances, etc., but that is something that must be estimated and taken into account, not simply ignored.

Just wanted to mention that I also think that improving political institutions and wisdom (and general capacity building) is quite interesting. I think policy in general is a semi-neglected EA area that could be highly valuable. Everything from advocating for known high impact policies to be put in place where they aren't (ex. tobacco taxation) to examining new policies that could be implemented (ex. novel ways of stopping illicit financial outflows from developing countries). I think GiveWell has also been looking into this field so I'm sure the... (read more)

I'm not sure if it would fall into your wheelhouse but some of the folks at Charity Entrepreneurship (including myself) are looking into effective taxation models starting with tobacco and I'm sure we could find a place for some econ help. Happy to chat at joelburke2014@gmail.com - more info about tobacco taxation and why it's effective here http://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/blog/tobacco-taxation

7
Larks
5y
Based on a quick read, it doesn't seem like you take into account the consumer surplus from smoking tobacco? This might not be a small factor: * Many smokers report enjoying the experience of smoking. * Many people choose to smoke despite knowing about the health effects. * Newer forms of tobacco consumption, like vaping, have significantly lower health side-effects. Indeed, few consumer products will look positive if we ignore the consumer surplus they produce.

The HN thread was definitely interesting, since the pivot of Open AI to a limited for profit company occurred, I am certainly concerned about whether they're going to be allocating as many resources for safety as they were and will be much more focused on commercial application development (which I think is a fair, and probably correct, thing to do when you have shareholders who have invested in you for a potential return rather than as a donor to a specific mission)

A note - you can easily find Greg Brockman (the Cofounder and CTO of Open AI) in the t... (read more)

I'm biased as I was part of the Estonian delegation that attended the latest EAGxNordics event but I have to say that all of this was very useful for me. It was the second EA conference I've attended but I've attended many other conferences and I think that all of these points also hold true for them too.

I especially second the idea of creating goals before the event, finding people who you want to speak with from the attendee list, and contacting them and setting up a time to chat even before the event starts in order to make sure you are getting value even if you don't attend a single talk.

I really like the second proposal in particular, the work charity entrepreneurship does is phenomenal and I think there is room for companies (not just nonprofits) to be launched that have a focus on generating returns that can be funneled into EA causes or just that have sustainable business models that can be run as for profit entities that do good while making money, employing other EAs, etc.

Hey Kit,

Thanks for the thoughtful response! Yes, I wholeheartedly agree the success of a fund like this is dependent on having someone experienced (and with a lot of connections) running it. I've worked for a YC/Andreessen startup from seed to Series B, Rocket Internet, and at a VC firm so I have a base level of understanding and network but I'd definitely either want to have someone more experienced managing it or have a killer group of advisors/partners around supporting.

As for your second question, how valuable is it to actually do this, that&... (read more)

1
Kit
5y
Wow, I'm no expert on VC, but it sounds like you could have the expertise to pull something like this off. Counterfactuals: mostly I'm saying that most impact investing just replaces other investment. At the ludicrous end of the spectrum (which is unfortunately most of the spectrum), a lot of 'socially responsible investing' involves buying shares on a public market, simply transferring ownership without changing incentivises (since the impact on capital raising ability appears minimal and most investors don't do PR stunts, influence management or other potentially useful byproducts of owning shares). As one goes into private markets -- as you are --, I'm a bit more optimistic since there are situations like seed funding where an investor really can make the difference between existing or not, or growing or not, and can perhaps have useful early influence. e.g. I'd guess that investing in Wave now would just be displacing another investor, while maybe an impact investor helped them get off the ground and they wouldn't have been funded by regular investors. (I don't know if that's true.) The more you can identify opportunities which you could fund which wouldn't otherwise get funded, the less confident I would be in my pessimism :) Overall, I mostly defer to the Founders Pledge report. Reading every mention of 'counterfactual' will likely cover everything I would say and much more. You mention a few potential outcomes from this kind of work (e.g. getting impactful things capital, a platform for EA advocacy, influencing companies' behaviour*). When I have done impact analysis recently, the first step was to consider what the most important outcomes could be. Sometimes a quick estimate suggests that one of the outcomes is much more important than the others, allowing you to focus on studying that factor. Re comparing to 80k's priority paths, I'd be surprised if doing something part-time would be optimal, just on generic advice. If that generalises to VC, I'd start b