Division Manager: Forum and Events at CEA. Non-EA interests include chess, TikTok, and applying science to things it isn't usually applied to.
This means that when we do encounter such an opportunity, we should most likely take it, even if it seems expensive or unlikely to succeed... Some EAs doing direct work could literally earn >$1,000 per hour if they pursued earning to give, but it's generally agreed that direct work seems more impactful for them
I notice that the listed grants seems substantially below $1000/hour; e.g. Rethink getting $250,000 for seven FTEs implies ~$35,000/FTE or roughly $18/hour. *
Is this because you aren't getting those senior people applying? Or are there other constraints?* (Maybe this is off by a factor of two if you meant that they are FTE but only for half the year etc.)
Thanks for commenting! Unfortunately applications for this position have closed, but I hope you will apply in a future round, or to one of the other positions for which we are currently hiring, if they are relevant to your skill set.
Congratulations on such a successful event!
Positive: The people I work with, both at CEA as well as the wider EA community, are often impressive, talented, and kind.
Negative: I'm not a morning person, and living in Pacific time while working with Brits means I have to be up early a lot
I sometimes speak to people who aren't aware how many career paths in community building there are, even outside of EA. I do think this causes there to be fewer community builders than there "should" be.
It feels hard to make really broad statements though; some people's skills and interests are pretty clearly not a fit for community building, and I don't think they should try to force it.
Thanks for writing this up! Really helpful to hear about your experiences with governments, and it's cool that you've been able to make so much progress.
I speak with a lot of people with software engineering backgrounds who are looking for impactful projects. Are there any software projects you wish people would take on?
I sometimes refer engineers to the cultivated meat modeling consortium, but that group doesn't seem very active.
I've heard that academic research is funding constrained, in the sense that there are academics who would be willing to do research, particularly in the field of cellular agriculture, but they can't get grants. (I think this funding constraint is partially a reflection of biological research being pretty expensive.) I noticed that very few of your grantees are formally affiliated with an academic institution.
Is this just because you don't get applications from academics, or are there reasons against funding them (e.g. the minimum grant size is too high)?
I sometimes hear from people who are interested in working on cellular agriculture or other meat alternatives, and want to do a PhD, but can't find an advisor who is working on one of those subjects, so they instead plan to research e.g. tissue engineering or cell modeling for the purpose of treating human disease (or some other better funded domain).
In your request for proposals, you seem mostly interested in people who are working full-time on animal-related research.
I'm curious if you have advice for people who are in the situation I described (including "it's really a lot better to immediately researching impactful things so you should try as hard as you can to do that"), and/or if there are any things people in this position could do that you would be excited to fund?
Thanks for posting this! If I understand your "risky" assumptions correctly, it seems to be targeted at people who believe (as a simple example):
Is that correct?
If so, what is the argument for believing both of these? My assumption is that someone who thinks that apples are lexically better than oranges would disagree with (2) and believe that any probability of an Apple is better than any probability of an orange.
Side question: the "risky" axioms seem quite similar to the Archimedean axiom in some variants of the VNM utility theorem. I think you also assume completeness and transitivity – are they enough to recover the entire VNM theorem? (I.e. do your axioms imply that there is a real-valued utility function whose expectation we must be trying to maximize?)