Personally, I don't have a problem with the title. It clearly states the central point of the post.
Regarding the example, spending $5k on EA group dinners is really not that much if it has even a 2% chance to cause one additional career change.
How much of the impact generated by the career change are you attributing to CEA spending here? I'm just wondering because counterfactuals run into the issue of double-counting (as discussed here).
Unsure but probably more than 20% if the person wouldn't be found through other means. I think it's reasonable to say there are 3 parties: CEA, the group organizers, and the person, and none is replaceable so they get 33% Shapley each. At 2% chance to get a career change this would be a cost of 750k per career which is still clearly good at top unis. The bigger issue is whether the career change is actually counterfactual because often it's just a speedup.
I agree that there is an analogy to animal suffering here, but there's a difference in degree I think. To longtermists, the importance of future generations is many orders of magnitude higher than the importance of animal suffering is to animal welfare advocates. Therefore, I would claim, longtermists are more likely to ignore other non-longtermist considerations than animal welfare advocates would be.
Thanks for writing this! It seems like you've gone through a lot in publishing this. I am glad you had the courage and grit to go through with it despite the backlash you faced.
What does TUA stand for?
Techno-utopian approach (via paper abstract)
Not sure if this fits, but it seems like 80,000 hours started as somewhat of a side project. This 2015 article it says 80k started with Will MacAskill and Ben Todd “forming a discussion group and giving lectures on the topic, then eventually creating 80,000 Hours to spread their ideas.” (They link to this vintage lecture they gave.)
I’m not sure how much of a “side project” this was to Ben and Will. Maybe others know more about that era.
I agree with Aaron! Given the little time you have, I would make the pitch as simple as possible.
Fair enough. I would guess you can usually have a higher impact through your career since you are doing something you've specialized in. But the first two examples you bring up seem valid.
For context here's a LessWrong post talking about the Paxlovid situation.
This seems like a good idea.
I submitted the following comment:
I urge the FDA to schedule its review of Paxlovid and to make the timeline 3 weeks or less, as it did with the COVID vaccine.
1000 people are dying of COVID in the US every day. With an efficacy of 89%, Paxlovid could prevent many of these deaths. The earlier Paxlovid is approved, the more lives will be saved.
Thank you for your consideration.
I wasn't sure what topic to put it under so I chose "Drug Industry - C0022."
I like this framing a lot. I particularly like the idea of replacing the phrase "doing good" with "helping others" and "maximization" with "prioritization."
I understand the impulse to mention volunteering before donations and careers because people naturally connect it with doing good. But I think it would be misleading for the following reasons:
I think we should be as accurate as we can w... (read more)
Is there evidence/theoretical reason to believe that not experimenting in governance leads a movement to become slow over time?
thank machine doggo
[Comment pointing out a minor error] Also, great post!
I'm impressed with the success you guys had! I'm excited to see your organization develop.
Great post! Thanks.
Good point. I'll bring this up with other group leaders.
This approach is compelling and you make a good case for it, but I think what Lynch said about how not supporting a movement can feel like opposing it is significant here. On our university campus, supporting a movement like Black Lives Matter seems obvious, so when you refuse to, it makes it looks like you have an ideological reason not to.
A few people in the EA group organizers slack (6 to be exact) expressed interest in discussing this.
Here are some ideas for topics to cover:
I envision this as an open discussion for people to share their experiences. At the end, we could compile the result of our discussion into a forum post.
In the beginning of the Christiano part it says
There can't be too many things that reduce the expected value of the future by 10%; if there were, there would be no expected value left.
Why is it unlikely that there is little to no expected value left? Wouldn't it be conceivable that there are a lot of risks in the future and that therefore there is little expected value left? What am I missing?
Thanks for pointing that out!