Thanks for all the work you do :)

typo: "The Global Fund is the world’s largest funder of maria control activities"

I would most naturally interpret it as "I also have this question" or "I agree with something implicitly expressed by this question"

I doubt anyone made a strategic decision to start fundraising orgs outside the Bay Area instead of inside it. I would guess they just started orgs while having personal reasons for living where they lived. People aren't generally so mobile or project-fungible that where projects are run is something driven mostly by where they would best be run.

That said, I half-remember that both 80k and CEA tried being in the Bay for a bit and then left. I don't know what the story there was.

"ask not what you can do for EA, but what EA can do for you"

like, you don't support EA causes or orgs because they want you to and you're acquiescing, you support them because you want to help people and you believe supporting the org will do that – when you work an EA job, instead of thinking "I am helping them have an impact", think "they are helping me have an impact"

of course there is some nuance in this but I think broadly this perspective is the more neglected one

I like the spirit of the reactions feature although the specific choice of reactions seems quite narrow / unnatural to me? I think two big missing ones from social media are laugh and sad – if you're concerned about being laughing at comments instead of with them you could mitigate it by labelling it something more unambiguously complimentary, like "witty" or "enjoyable"?

I think "changed my mind" is a great one, though.

This is similar to how StackOverflow / StackExchange works, I think – any user can propose an edit (or there's some very low reputation threshold, I forget) but if you're below some reputation bar then your edit won't be published until reviewed by someone else.

Making this system work well though probably requires higher-karma users having a way of finding out about pending edits.

I think this would be a good top-level post

OK, but this post is about drawing an analogy between the degrowth debate and the AI pause debate, and I don't see the analogy. Do you disagree with my argument for why they aren't analogous?

Especially if you disagree, explain why or upvote a comment that roughly reflects your view rather than downvoting. Downvoting controversial views only hides them rather than confronting them.

As a meta-comment, please don't assume that anyone who downvotes does so because they disagree, or only because they disagree. A post being controversial doesn't mean it must be useful to read, any more than it means it must not be useful to read. I vote on posts like this based on whether they said something that I think deserves more attention or helped me understand something better, regardless of whether I think it's right or wrong.

While I agree there are similarities in the form of argument between degrowth and AI pause, I don't think those similarities are evidence that the two issues should have the same conclusion. There's simply nothing at all inconsistent about believing all of these at the same time:

• AI pause is desirable
• AI pause is achievable
• Degrowth is undesirable
• Degrowth is not feasible

Almost the entire question, for resolving either of these issues, is working out whether these premises are really true or not. And that's where the similarities end, IMO: there's not much analogy between the relevant considerations for feasibility of AI pause and feasibility of degrowth, or desirability of either outcome, that would lead us to think it's surprising for them to have different answers.