All of DavidZhang's Comments + Replies

I've often heard the phrase "numbers matter" but not sure if I prefer it. The concept reminds me of (the inverse of) the quote attributed to Stalin that "the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic." In the EA for Christians community we have sometimes used the phrase "love thy statistic" as a slogan to counter this.

I don't completely disagree with your prediction about the outcome, but it seems highly likely to me that the compromise will be worse for Ukraine (and the West/world) than the concessions I outlined. Eg puppet government in Kyiv, death of Ukrainian democracy. I think Plus, this way thousands of people died from warfare and we carry the risk of nuclear war.

That's fair, it's not appeasement, but neither is it what people wanted of Chamberlain in WW2. 

In response to your two points:

  1. Agreed - I wasn't expecting Ukraine's military to hold out so well. In the longer run I suspect Putin still has the upper hand, but this isn't what he wanted. That said I still think the most likely outcome for Ukraine is still very bad, and note that my option would have (hopefully) avoided the loss/suffering/economic collapse that has already happened. Lastly, I could be ex ante right even if this week's events change our ex post calculations.
  2. I wouldn't say overwhelming, but I have been impressed with European unity and sur
... (read more)
1
Charles He
2y
I think you’re right and I’m wrong about what will happen in the military situation, and this seems important for suffering.   I said: You said: Unfortunately, I think you are right that the Russians will win. Also your perspective and post is right and much more virtuous than it seemed.  A perspective of the military situation is given here in this thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/KofmanMichael/status/1498381975022940167 Basically, the Russian military looks bad right now. But this is because they relied on a light quick attack. However, the Russians are really good at brutal artillery attacks, which they will probably resort to. This may take time but they will use these and other heavy weapons in the following weeks or months. If this happens, the Russians might level the cities of Ukraine, which are still filled with hundreds of thousands of people and the historical and cultural value of Ukraine.   I’m not really sure but it seems like there is an intervention here that is sort of weird in an EA way. The idea of this intervention is not that we focus on stopping the war immediately. The “negotiations” that are going on seem ineffective.  Instead, we acknowledge the outcome, the surrender of Ukraine, and we focus on doing things that might result in a ceasefire earlier than it would otherwise occur, and at lower levels of destruction from heavy weapons.  For example, maybe US and NATO concessions can be dangled, or acts of antagonism are discouraged so that it doesn’t entrench the conflict, but I don’t really know what to do. Another subthread is that the US policy establishment might have a mindset focused on Ukraine’s instrumental value in undermining Russia. Maybe this means that peace and concessions to Russia could be relatively neglected. It seems possible that someone could convince the US that enough has been done by the Ukrainian people.  Again, this intervention is weird because it says that the west will be horrified at some point and
2
Charles He
2y
I think that there's good evidence, including US intelligence claims, that Russia decided on the invasion many weeks ago. This is another point, to the others above, that are contra to the premise of your post.  I'm also skeptical that Putin is backed into a corner or that it's worth any time reacting to related posturing, as others seem to have.  Russian decisions, starting from weeks ago, through to today are easily rationalizable (if grossly incompetent and murderous). Putin can make his performative actions, but he spends a lot of effort/money on say, his $100M yacht which he carefully evacuated before the conflict or his (probable)  billion dollar (!) palace in the Mediterranean climate on the Black Sea.   I think your post is more virtuous and thoughtful than it appears.  The truth is that the Ukraine resistance and efforts on the back of the Ukrainian people, provide enormous value for western and US interests. It's not clear the Ukrainians are really being "compensated" for this. (I'm not sure where this fits in with a "realist" worldview but) I see your post as pushing through this to look at the human toll. The truth is probably that human suffering will be a lot higher with the effective Ukraine resistance we are seeing than the collapse that Russia expected. It's risky to point this out, in front of many Ukrainians and others close to the events, including those in Poland who have suffered a terrible history of de facto betrayal and perfidy.      Another reason why I'm interested in asking questions is that deep models are rare and it's good to poke and try to learn more about them.

Thanks Andrew - I'm glad you agree. I also agree that consequentialism encourages a high level of realism. That said, I was expecting a higher level of agreement from the EA community on this post, so it's interesting that not everyone shares my view.

I think the difference with GB/Germany is that the West is unwilling to provide meaningful military support for Ukraine, in the form of troops on the ground. From Ukraine's perspective I think this is the worst of both worlds, because the West won't actually stand up the bully, but also isn't willing to engage with it. This has resulted in war. 

This is what I meant by Ukraine being in an unusual position: it is sufficiently West-aligned that it won't give into Putin's demands, and he wants to cause trouble, but its lack of Nato membership means that U... (read more)

3
Peter
2y
I'm not sure I would call giving weapons to Ukraine, sanctioning Russia, and hunting down war supporting Oligarchs' assets as appeasement. It's not the maximum response but it is an escalation of response to Putin's attack. It might be enough to scare elites who support Putin without causing further escalation, which is dangerous since we are dealing with a country that has nuclear weapons, which wasn't the case with the Nazi regime in WW2. 

Yes, I agree that those options aren't super practical (if they were, they probably would have happened last week), but my main point is that they would be preferable to the current situation. I also don't want to reward Putin, obviously. However he's currently on course to take the whole country. Surely this is worse for the West/Ukraine, and better for him?

On the last two bullet points: the first is informed by talking to analysts and parliamentary researchers in the UK. I think most people would agree there is political pressure (both domestic and inter... (read more)

2
Charles He
2y
Thanks David,   There are two points that are huge and aren't mentioned at all in your posts or replies. * Ukraine's military performance has been wildly successful, more so than is reported. It even seems like Russia's offensive with its current deployed forces could fail. * The international response seems overwhelming and seems likely to gravely harm Russia's capability to conduct future adverse activity of any kind.   My comment you are reading could age poorly (in the worst case, if Ukraine's organized defenses collapses and the conflict turns into a terribly violent insurgency, and sanctions prove short lived). But there's something really off here.  Your post and perspective seem to come from a "realist" perspective. But it's not addressing these points above (and others as well). This seems really weird to me, sort of walking in an uncanny valley. I can't really place this and I don't know what's going on.    This feels similar to Feb 2020. I know someone who spoke with a staff member at the CDC, and this staff member had a post-graduate STEM degree. They vehemently said that the value of masks for civilians was zero (this was a conversation over several days, and semi-private)[1].    The UK's intelligence on Russia is excellent, and has been huge aid in the conflict. Presumably the analysts you are speaking to are excellent, especially if you're speaking to mainstream researchers who are advising policy.  But I don't know who you are talking to. In this situation I want to learn more about who you are speaking to. I guess the main explanation is that I'm very wrong, but it's hard for me to see how.  Maybe these people are of extreme talent, and have decades of experience focused on this issue, and it takes a lot of time for me to even see their worldview and judgement. 1. ^ It got pretty weird: when presented with papers, the staff member got increasingly hostile. This seemed bizarre, especially since they spoke under "color of aut

Hmm, I think I disagree. It's different to the 'fat man' case because in that case the fat man would otherwise survive if you didn't push him. In this case, the regions will be taken anyway. So the trade-off seems more similar to the classic trolley problem where you are diverting the trolley to save the five. 

I agree, however, that Ukraine should be involved with the decision process. My worry is that Nato allies and Ukraine were too quick to close down those channels last week, and that concessions would have been preferable to the current situation (including for Ukrainians). 

2
DPiepgrass
2y
It wasn't meant as a direct analogy. A more direct analogy would be, we've got a nation of fat men who elect popular leaders who then decide whether (A) some unknown (quite low or quite high) number of fat men will get run over by trolleys, or (B) a large and predictable number will be forced to live under an autocratic regime from now on, reducing the risk of trolley fatalities for at least a few more years. Mind you, I'm told that only 20% of Ukrainians are obese, so even this analogy is a little strained.

I agree that Putin would probably have an extended list of demands, many of which would not be worth meeting. The question is whether there was a compromise last week that would have been better than the war we are now seeing. 

I'm not sure I understand your first bullet point - obviously I'd love to see Ukraine join the EU. But now they won't anyway. What's the pathway from this war to EU membership?

I agree in an ideal world Ukraine would decide on concessions, but they have now had these regions taken by force. Is this really a better outcome for Ukranians? 

1
PabloAMC
2y
I think our disagreement lies in what is the likely outcome of this. I believe you think Ukrainians will have to concede on everything. And while he seems decided to conquer all of Ukraine, I would say some sort of compromise will be reached before that.

I have added something - let me know if you think more is needed!

2
Stefan_Schubert
2y
Thanks, that looks good.

Thanks both - this is really interesting and not what I expected. I think in the UK context there is policy-adjacent research being funded for CSER, CLTR and FHI, and a bit for CE, which I count as all in the EA org bucket, whereas I don't know of any EA funding going to non-EA policy think tanks. I had also put CSET more in the EA category, but it's great to hear that things are different in DC and there's a real interest in funding policy think tanks!

2
lukeprog
2y
Yeah CSET isn't an EA think tank, though a few EAs have worked there over the years.

I think reaching out with a proposal (as Founders Pledge did with Carnegie) is probably the best bet, but it would also be worth ensuring think tanks are aware of the existence of the EA funds and that they can just apply for them. E.g. I don't think my think tank knows about them.

Yes, I agree, I don't think this is a big problem at the best think tanks, though there are plenty of (generally very ideologically motivated) half-rate think tanks in London and DC.

Oh cool - thanks, I wasn't aware! I think it is potentially quite rare in the UK, which is my context. London has a lot of big think tanks and I don't know of any that have received EA funding. I agree that 'rare' is an unhelpful (and evidently inaccurate) word, though even in the US, as a proportion of EA policy research funding, am I right that the vast majority would still go to EA orgs?

Fwiw, I did some light research (hours not days) a few years ago on the differences between US and European think tanks and the (perhaps out of date) conventional wisdom seemed to be that they play a relatively outsized role in the U.S. (there are various hypotheses for why). So That may be one reason for the US/UK difference (though funders being in the US and many other issues could also be playing a role).

What EA orgs do you have in mind? I guess this would be policy development at places like GovAI and maybe Rethink Priorities? My guess is that the policy-focused funding for EAish orgs like that is dwarfed by the Open Phil funding for CSET and CHS alone, which IIRC is >$130M so far.

I'd guess the answer is "no", based in part on the $55m grant to CSET. (Though it's debatable whether CSET is EA vs EA-adjacent vs non-EA, and CSET was basically "incubated" by that grant rather than already having been a well-known think tank.) Also there's lots of funding to places like Nuclear Threat Initiative and the Centre for Global Development.

One could look at OP's grants database to get a more systematic sense of this. (Of course OP doesn't account for all of EA funding, but does account for a big chunk.)

(That apparent error aside, I still though... (read more)

It is understandable that we want to prioritise those who are closer to us. It’s natural, instinctive, and often helps society to function - like when parents prioritise their kids. But it can also create harmful barriers and division.

History is full of examples of humans devaluing those who seem different or distant to them: just think about how different religions have treated each other, 19th Century slavery, or even the way people prefer to give to local charities over global development. 

We should be really cautious when discounting the value of ... (read more)

1
james
2y
Thanks for your submission!

This is incredibly helpful. For those interested in a UK context, I've put together some shorter and less well evidenced pieces on similar themes:

Working in Parliament: How to get a job & have an impact

Becoming a Member of Parliament: potential routes & impact

Writing about my job: NGO Advocacy (UK context)

In general I think the core recommendations carry across to a UK/European context. A few of exceptions that come to mind:

  • I don't think law degrees are as helpful in the UK, there was a time when many or even most MPs had them, but now they are muc
... (read more)

Thanks Aidan, super helpful. I too have cooperative instincts but am very sceptical of China and the US ever being friendly without some sort of significant political change in China, though I believe this doesn't necessarily require the downfall of the CCP, but could at least initially take the form of a more moderate / Western-sympathetic leader. It's unclear how that will happen any time soon though. 

On France, my understanding is that its exclusion is primarily down to (a) a strong preference for nuclear propulsion technology, which is held by the... (read more)

This is a good analysis! Just to extend / build on your argument, the key thing I'm interested in is the probability and extent of any armed conflict. There is a lot of game theory involved with this, but crudely speaking conflict can arise when one side sees an advantage in attacking first. This could be because they hold a stronger-but-not-dominant position or a weaker-but-not-crushed position, as it is in these positions that the payoffs to conflict are highest. So perhaps the idea behind your first bullet point from the Economist is that a balanced pow... (read more)

2
Yi-Yang
2y
Yes, that's right!  Yes, but it's more like China's economic influence has tilted the balance in China's favour for some years now (i.e. Belt & Road Initiative). It's only  recently with AUKUS that there's more of a balance between China and the US overall.  However, in terms of economic  influence, China still has a stronger foothold in ASEAN than the US. 

Thanks Nathan. In terms of briefing MPs, I think my main aim is to shift the debate towards the most important aspects of the deal, from a longer-term and bigger scale perspective. E.g. when Parliament debates AUKUS, it would be a shame if the debate entirely focuses on UK job opportunities from the deal, or French anger, when there are bigger issues of nuclear warfare at play. I guess the theory of change is that this improves the standard of debate which helps politicians make better defence capability decisions in the future. 

Thanks, I'm surprised the UK's proliferation didn't get more attention! 

Thanks, I think I agree with most of this. I wonder also if the US and others were a bit surprised at how strongly France reacted. As with the Afghanistan withdrawal, I wonder if Biden underestimated the strength of European partners' feelings. I agree it's hard to assess how much these things ultimately matter though.

It does seem that, for Australia's purposes, the nuclear propulsion option is superior to diesel, however I'm sure a key part of opting for nuclear was getting to be in a pact with the US.

3
Larks
2y
I wasn't convinced by the argument that the US needs multi-lateralism, especially if it can still rely on allies like the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Poland etc. The US has repeatedly shown its ability to force other states to comply with its wishes in a variety of ways. This is even the case with war - for example the Iraq war, which was basically entirely the US, with some small help from close allies like the UK and Poland. Similarly I think speculation that this might cause the end of the dollar as a reserve currency seems very, well, speculative.  The exclusion of France is something of an issue though I think. They are in many ways a natural military ally for the UK, as well a procurement partner, which is important because the UK is so inefficient at procurement (see e.g. the Ajax debacle, or our very inefficient shipyard). Excluding them here also makes the Atlanticist parts of the French establishment look stupid, and strengthens the hand of the NATO-skeptics.  But this should be matched against the inclusion of Australia. China is undertaking a variety of efforts to influence the Antipodean nations, including significantly compromising New Zealand. This deal could help to significantly strengthen their ties to the west. It is perhaps worth noting that nuclear submarines are not strictly better than diesel submarines. Diesels are cheaper, so you can have more of them, and they can be quieter than nukes, though their operational range is obviously much shorter.

Fair point - political wasn't the right word. I guess it's more about those issues being about particular countries' interests in particular historical contexts, whereas nuclear and GMOs feel more like classic cause areas (and are still very live today). Also, I don't think nuclear and GMOs fall along party political lines. 

I guess your point about the USSR raises a question about this example which has been explored in other threads: I don't think the ideal example is one where the cause is obviously bad (like persecuting Christians), I think it's so... (read more)

Thanks! I had considered things like this, but I'm not sure how well it illustrates the cause prioritisation point as in many ways these feel like the same cause (blindness) but different interventions, one of which is more effective than the other. I.e. it feels a bit more like a standard PlayPumps case, rather than highlighting the importance of picking the right cause? 

Feel free to push back if you disagree - I'm not too sure how tightly defined a 'cause area' is, but my general presumption is that it refers to addressing a distinct problem. 

I guess one question I would have is whether the campaigners at the time were using good reason and evidence. It's possible that the information we have now was not available to them, and it's also possible that it's a legitimate cause area (i.e. overpopulation is a real concern) even if the means (sterilisation etc.) are clearly wrong. I'm not an expert on this at all but will read up on more recent literature on overpopulation!

-1
Alex Barnes
3y
Forced sterilization in India: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/5/18629801/emergency-in-india-1975-indira-gandhi-sterilization-ford-foundation Family and Sanctity of life are probably good frames for a Christian audience. As is the way we treat the poorest, most downtrodden: whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me (from Matthew 25:40). Relating back to cause prioritization: a cause that treats people as a problem will always be inherently flawed.

Thanks so much - someone else suggested China's One Child Policy and I think this or a more general point on overpopulation might be where we end up! Really great suggestion. The sterilisation stories are harrowing and I think could really bring the point home.

So I guess the reason is that the example illustrates the importance of cause prioritisation more strongly. It's the same with PlayPumps: MacAskill could have picked a much better charitable intervention and yet still argued for effectiveness, but this wouldn't powerfully demonstrate just how important it is to get the intervention right. 

I completely agree with your overall point about maximising the good we can do, and other parts of the book will emphasise how important it is to not just settle for 'good enough'!

Interesting. Without reading into it, I've always assumed that Western defences of colonialism (incl. White Man's Burden) were somewhat disingenuous, i.e. defending something they knew was wrong, or was at least controversial, and the motivations were not altruistic. The ideal case is one where people are being genuinely altruistic but completely miss the mark. 

Prohibition is a super interesting one I hadn't considered, thanks! 

GMOs/nuclear power are interesting but I'd suspect it's unlikely to engage readers' emotions much. I.e. I doubt they'll leave thinking 'wow, what a waste of time to oppose GMOs!' because there is something quite intuitively unappealing about them. Might be worth a mention though, even if not as the key case study.

The others feel a little bit politicised, even though I agree!

2
Larks
3y
I'm surprised you would think that the support for the USSR and WWII isolationism, positions endorsed by no major western political parties today, are more political than GMOs and nuclear power, which are still opposed by major groups, but happy to help! I actually thought the USSR example might be especially palatable to your audience given the communists' historical persecution of Christians.
4
Sjlver
3y
I've seen this comment after writing my answer on GMOs... sorry for duplicating that idea. That said, I totally think that opposing GMOs is not just a waste of time, it's actually harmful. One of the striking examples is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice , where delays in approval probably caused thousands of deaths from vitamin A deficiency.

Thanks. The nuclear one is a great example. 
 

We want examples of both prioritisation between causes and prioritisation between interventions, but cases of the latter are far easier to find - like PlayPumps the examples you give.  I actually think the former is a more important EA insight: it would probably be more valuable for the world for people/resources to focus on the most pressing cause areas, rather than to do what we currently do more (locally) effectively.

Thanks - do you know of any analysis / data behind your three bullet points which I could point to? Instinctively I agree that the costs almost certainly outweigh the benefits, but I anticipate scepticism from readers!

2
Scott Smith
3y
Obviously not directed at me, but the findings of this study did the rounds a few years ago in the media: Life Cycle Assessment of grocery carrier bags I'm not endorsing any position here. All I personally took from this study was to ensure to re-use my canvas bags and that plastic pollution is likely more significantly mitigated by further economic growth in less-developed nations (with little evidence and, suspiciously conveniently, fitting in with my pre-existing world view).

These are great ideas and exactly along the right lines of what I was looking for. I agree the religious aspect is tricky to navigate, but perhaps being somewhat close to home is useful for readers (i.e. I expect many readers will believe in the apocalypse, but very few would endorse sects who predict specific dates. 

Someone on Facebook has also suggested China's One Child Policy, which is a nice contemporary example, not least because it was reversed this year!

Thanks, ALS is a good suggestion (and I could imagine us using it) but I don't think it quite meets the 'PlayPump' test, in that I doubt readers would go away thinking that ALS is a bad cause area, in the same way that they would think PlayPumps are actually bad. It's possible that the bar I'm setting is too high, but ideally I want a cause area which people reflect on and think 'wow, what a waste  of time, that's not worth pursuing at all!' - but perhaps all the main causes which people focus on are at least somewhat good. 

I think plastic straws are a v good option here, when you consider that:

  • paper straws are just a worse experience for ~everyone
  • metal/glass arguably worse for the environment given number of uses and resources required to produce (see also reusable bags)
  • Some disabled people rely on straws and paper replacements terrible for them

 

This is certainly closer to the playpumps [actively harmful once you think properly about it] than the ALS [not a huge issue but it's not like stopping ALS would be actually bad in a vacuum].

Hey! I'm not sure I have the right experience or knowledge to make the comparative claim, but it would certainly be worth considering the following:

  • I've heard that international diplomacy (e.g. at the UN) is difficult for an individual to influence, and lots of big decisions come down to domestic considerations anyway 
  • In terms of NGOs, I think advocacy can be a great route, though more impactful if it is aimed at an influential government (the US, EU, UK)
  • In global terms the UK is a significant player, especially in some priority cause areas - e.g. glo
... (read more)
1
freedomandutility
3y
Yes it is, thank you!

Thanks, these are great insights and I hadn't considered the first before. I'd always assumed one's impact would improve if one's MP became a minister (albeit depending on the policy brief), partly because the (very few) friends I know whose MPs were promoted saw their own work become more interesting and important, and some became political advisers. Perhaps a big factor is whether the new minister is allocated spads and whether they promote their parliamentary staff to these roles. I think a lot of spads are former assistants, but that doesn't imply that... (read more)

2
MichaelPlant
3y
Yep, SpAds bit is key - If my employer hadn't got a special advisor, I might have been useful