320Joined Mar 2017


GHD charity additionalities & alternatives
Wellbeing Growth


Topic Contributions

Thank you! I think quantitative approaches should be given greater attention.

1) Are you interested in increasing diversity of the longtermist community? If so, alongside what lines?

One possibility is to increase shares of minorities according to US Census Bureau topics: race, sex, age, education, income, etc. Ways of thinking about EA, one's (static or dynamic) comparative advantages, or roles naturally/nurturally taken in a team would be irrelevant. The advantage of this diversification is its (type 1 thinking) acceptance/endorsement among some decisionmaking environments in EA, such as the Bay Area or London. The disadvantage is that diversity of perspectives may not necessarily be gained (for example, students of different race, sex, and parents' income studying at the same school may think alike).

Another possibility is to focus on the ways of thinking about EA, one's current comparative advantage and that which they can uniquely develop, and roles that they currently or prospectively enjoy. In this case, Census-type demographics would be disregarded. The disadvantage is that diversity might not be apparent (for example, affluent white people, predominantly males, who think in very different ways about the long-term future and work well together could constitute the majority of community members). The advantage is that things would get done and different perspectives considered.

These two options can be combined in a narrative-actual or actual-narrative ways: Census-type diversity could be an instrument for thinking/action/roles diversity, while only the former is narrated publicly. Or, vice versa, people of various thinking/comparative advantages/preferred roles would be attracted to increase Census-type fractions. Is either necessary or a great way to mitigate reputational loss risk? Do you have an available strategy on the longtermist community growth?

2) Is it possible to apply for a grant without collaborators but with a relevant experience or strategy of finding them?

For example, can one apply if they had previously advertised and interviewed others for a similar EA-related opportunity but have not initiated an advertisement process for the application?

Do you award grants or vary their amount conditional on others' interest? For example, is it possible to apply for a range depending on a collaborator's compensation preference or experience? Is it possible to forgo a grant if no qualified candidate is interested?

This is so cool. I had a similar idea about an ethical game a while ago! The idea was that:

  • The objective is to improve decisionmakers' ethics
    • More points are gained for impact-maximization decisions in places and at times of large important meetings
      • The game settings/new developments are unrelated to the actual meetings but inspire thinking alongside similar lines[1]
    • At places and at times without large important meetings, on the other hand, points are gained for more deontological and active-listening-based decisions - the greater diversity of places of engagement, the better
      • This should motivate the consideration of a broader variety of groups, also though confirming that individuals should be nice to others[2]
  • Traditional social hierarchy shortcuts are played with in the design
    • For example, any gender person or entity can save another entity from a tower/pond/etc, if that task is included in the game
    • Authority characters exhibit some of the same body language as traditional[3] and non-traditional[4] authorities but are of any identities (traditionally more and less powerful, such as people of any gender, race, and background) who express themselves individually
    • Body shaming is entirely replaced by spirit and skill-based judgment but it is still possible to in some cases confirm one's biases about body hierarchies
    • Hierarchies related to territory, self and partners' objectification according to commerce, disregard in intimacy, ownership of items expensive due to marketing not function, fight that hurts someone, gaining attention by threat, showcasing unapproachability, and other negative standards are not used to motivate players' progress or present a hierarchy - there is not really a hierarchy since the game is cooperative
      • These hierarchies can be used for critical engagement/discourse
  • The environment and tasks are continuously created, also by the players
    • Players gain points/perks for suggesting quests and settings that motivate impact-maximization decisionmaking and active listening to a diversity of individuals
      • The explicit objective point/perk award criteria includes an ethical 'passing' standard (relatively easy to get approved by friends, as long as one is friends from at least someone from various teams/groups/experience) but is otherwise based on something exclusively game-relevant (such as the number of blocks used)
    • The developers check on the ethical developments and intervene as necessary
      • For example,  if a new ethical norm that was just accepted starts being overemphasized, as if to make a point by some groups, an interesting less ethics-intense challenge is introduced
      • If the dark triad traits become  prominent among malevolent actors, points are associated with actions that  counter the reinforcement of these traits
      • If anything becomes too repetitive or boring, new possibilities of playing are introduced
  • Friendships are formed
    • Players can participate in various teams at the same time. There is no better and worse affiliation, point maximization depends on one's skills. Players can change affiliations freely, which can be beneficial to their score.
    • Chat function is engaging and concisely informative, providing the delight of having all info available in a useful format. Sincere reactions can be exhibited (rather than e. g. stickers or memes that confirm biases or optimize for non-critical engagement)
    • Players can be recognized at large decisionmaker meetings and outside.
  • Coding challenges
    • Make it difficult to trick the GPS
      • Or not, if there may be a sufficiently small number of sufficiently cool non-decisionmaker players who can inspire the decisionmakers

Feel free to use this for inspiration.

Are you soliciting ideas for the games in any way? For example, will you have Essay Contests or ideation days? There may be high interest from the EA community.

Another question is if you seek to actually engage the players in the alignment or more so make them comfortable[5] so that you can slip any thinking to them, even if they 'wanted spaceships and it is animal welfare?'[6]

  1. ^

    For example, to acquire a bounty pirates have to critically engage parrots while finding a way to make swords when iron is not on the map.

    This can be very entertaining to the attendees of the  OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting, if it seemed that everyone is parroting phrases. The no natural resource on the map can be a fun way to attract attention in a kind way and gain friendly understanding of fellow Meeting participants. This is a hypothetical example.

  2. ^

    The way to motivate the decisionmakers to engage non-humans can be through analogous game challenges (this blob flying around you is trying to communicate something - what do you do to understand?) or marking some places with those who understand non-humans (e. g. neuroscience researchers or sanctuary farmers) as high-point for active-listening decisionmaking.

  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^

    I am not sure if I am emotionally explaining the difference adequately, but this relates to the feeling 1) from the stomach up, palms going up, the person seeks to engage and is positively stimulated or 2) slight relaxation in the lower back, hands close, the person seeks to repeat ideas and avoid personal interaction.

  6. ^

    Engaging the players may be necessary, otherwise problems that need extensive engagement will not get resolved and efficiency may be much lower compared to when everyone actually tries to solve the overall inclusive alignment and continue to optimize for greater wellbeing, efficiencies, and other important objectives.

    The example is that a 60-hen cage can be better for chickens than open barns (according to EconTalk) - and that is just one aspect of life of one of the almost 9 million species and many more individuals. If people were to be 'tricked' into opening cages, a lot would remain unresolved.

The discussion can be more unified (interpreted as organized with better-searchable ideas) if the comments are in-line and one does not need to search (the same) quotes and their responses in the comments. One would look in-line for comments relevant to the quotes that they like/seek to discuss or learn further perspectives on and under the article they would look for general comments. This is similar to how one would comment on a Google Docs draft that someone asked them to proofread.

Possibly, most commented on quotes could be highlighted - 'community highlighting.' By number of comments, their length, or post part upvote. Are there any bias confirmation/perpetuation on first-come basis risks?

I wonder what searchability (of annotations and linked notes) optimal for the Forum would be. Currently, it seems somewhat difficult to search articles by keyword by the Forum search function, because of the recommendation algorithm that may disproportionately show specific posts.

Can this be not only comments but also upvotes/downvotes (as you suggest with '+1'), questions, and polls relevant to specific parts, quotes, or sections of the post?

One could find it easier to orient themselves in the community responses to different parts of the text when they can hover over a highlighted part and see its karma and reactions. The reactions could also be categorized and users could choose to see only some type of reactions (e. g. not on typos or clarification questions or polls but yes on complementary or contradictory evidence, challenging questions, and idea advancement).

The community rather than the author should select segment that they wish to comment on. Otherwise, the author could 'hide' a contentious conclusion in a generally agreeable block of text. However, this has the disadvantage that someone can be responding to the key word in the sentence and another person to the entire sentence. Then, comments that could be consolidated would be split, which would reduce the text orientation efficiency.

I have not seen this on the EA Forum feature suggestion thread, which you may be interested in mentioning it on.

It seems alarming that GiveWell bases their significant donation recommendations only on one study[1] that, furthermore, does not seem to understand beneficiaries' perspectives but rather estimates metrics that relate to performance within hierarchies that historically privileged people set up: school attendance[2], hours worked[3], and income.

GiveWell’s reports should align more closely with academic norms where authors are expected to fully explain their data, methods, and analysis, as well as the factors that their conclusions are sensitive to

I disagree that GiveWell's reports should align more closely with academic norms, because these norms do not engage intended beneficiaries.

Explanations can help differentiate the actually most helpful programs from those made prestige by big/small numbers and convoluted analyses.

Allowing GiveWell's audience tweak the factors and see how conclusions change would show the organization's confidence in their (moral) judgments.

'Data' should not be confused with 'numbers.' Focus group data may be invaluable compared to quantitative estimates when a solution to a complex problem is being found.

  1. ^

    The only evidence GiveWell uses to estimate the long-term effects of deworming comes from a study of the Primary School Deworming Project (PSDP) using the Kenya Life Panel Survey (KLPS) (Miguel & Kremer, 2004) and its follow-ups (Baird et al., 2016; Hamory et al., 2021). (HLI, Appendix: Calculations of Deworming Decay )

  2. ^

    School curricula in developing contexts may include post-colonial legacy, select elites while leaving most behind, or optimize for raising industrial workforce that may prevent global value chain advancement of industrializing nations but make the countries an instrument for affordable consumption of foreign-made goods.

  3. ^

    I am unsure whether unpaid domestic and care work was considered within hours worked - excluding this would imply greater value of paid over unpaid work, a standard set up by the historically privileged.

Zotero creates a bibliography if you click on all the links and then click on the browser extension icon on each page. It does not always work perfectly - but e. g. data from academic articles get usually copied well.

OK! I cannot find #Title on LessWrong but based on your description it seems analogous to linking a post or using a tag?

If a user is a fan of someone who they do not have an actual connection with (usually did not meet in person for 1-on-1 and have not shared common interests), they would use the professional tag (for example, one could tag Joel McGuire if they write something that they think that he would find useful, based on his posts). The friendly tag (that has to be authorized by the tagged person) should be used when people are confident that they know their friend's interests so well that they would recommend something that the friend would enjoy (while they may also find it useful). So, the intent difference is inform based on the user's professional presentation vs. notify of enjoyable content based on the users' friendly connection.

Tagging users to notify them (@[username]). People should be able to ‘authorize’ friendly tags but ‘professional’ tags should be possible by default. Users should be able to turn on-off notifications for ‘friendly’ and ‘professional’ tags. In this way, people could make and maintain connections via the Forum.

Also, orgs (or departments) could have their own tags. For example, if someone does not make a writing contest deadline, they should still be able to notify the org about an idea. Organizations could be also able to filter their tag and another set of tags or keywords (for example, 'Open Philanthropy, Worldview Diversification, DALY' could allow an OPP researcher to skim collective intelligence related to their calculation methodology and possibly delegate further research to people who had thought about it already).

Load More