Wiki Contributions


The EA Animal Welfare Fund Has Significant Room For More Funding

To what extent does the Animal Welfare Fund take into account ACE's recommendations?

I'm beginning to view ACE's evaluation process as somewhat suspect after they delisted GFI seemingly over minor complaints about management, and would want to be confident that the Animal Welfare Fund is sufficiently independent.

A case for the effectiveness of protest

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

(I spotted that YouGov graph yesterday; agree that it's pretty compelling evidence for XR increasing concern about the environment.)

A case for the effectiveness of protest

Thanks for putting this together. I haven't had a chance to go through your cost-effectiveness estimate in detail, but I do plan to. However:

I would attribute XR 10-50% of the credit for shifting the previously agreed net-zero date from 2050 to 2030, due to their Overton Window-shifting demand of net-zero by 2025 and huge popularity in the UK

YouGov compiles a list of famous UK charities and their popularity; XR is the second-most disliked charity on the list (38% of people surveyed saying they dislike). The only more-disliked charity is the far-right English Defence League.  The majority of Britons are against XR's protests. If your estimate of 10–50% is based partly on them being popular, I would view that as suspect.

(As an aside, I think there could have been reputational risks to EA if we had publicly endorsed XR at the height of their power. Partly this is down to XR's unpopularity and the divisiveness of their protest tactics, but also because their poor epistemic practices could have reasonably led others to question our own.)

Announcing our 2021 charity recommendations

Of note: "ACE is not able to share any additional information about any of the anonymous allegations", and yet ACE turned down GFI's offer to investigate the complaints further:

GFI would be happy to participate fully in an investigation of the complaints to better understand and address them, and we offered to hire an external investigator. ACE declined

Which makes is sound as though GFI were willing to make efforts to resolve/investigate these anonymous complaints but ACE were not willing to pursue this.

As Pablo noted, concerns over the uncertain impact of cell-cultured products aren't new, so it would be surprising if that was the real reason GFI was stripped of their title. Feels like ACE is burying the lede here.

An evaluation of Mind Ease, an anti-anxiety app

I could believe that mHealth/iCBT/online therapy is very cost-effective, but the claims here seem to be about Mind Ease in particular. As such the meat of the report is likely to be found in chapter 4, the actual evaluation of Mind Ease – but this section is inaccessible.

Is there a reason this was omitted from the public report?

The EA Forum Editing Festival has begun!

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like the wiki isn't labelled as such - as in, there isn't a part of the site called the 'wiki'. There's also the 'tags portal' which refers to the 'EA Forum Wiki', but as I understand it that page essentially is the wiki. The language is confusing.

Should there be a section of the site called the 'wiki' that lists all these pages? Or maybe even consider renaming tags to wiki - where posts on the forum can be 'tagged' with a wiki article.

(The URLs for tags should probably more conventionally be in the format /tags/<tagname>, not /tag/<tagname>. Going to /tag gives a 404.)

10 Habits I recommend (2020)

Seconding the Replacing Guilt series (and podcast); it’s fantastic.

Bored at home? Contribute to the EA Wiki!

Thanks for flagging - that's now approved. Still need to do some fiddling with the MediaWiki setup I think, both to ward off spam and to get email alerts for pending approvals.

Slate Star Codex, EA, and self-reflection

My response to (b): the word is probably beyond rehabilitation now, but I also think that people ought to be able to have discussions about bioethics without having to clarify their terms every ten seconds. I actually think it is unreasonable of someone to skim someone’s post on something, see a word that looks objectionable, and cast aspersions over their whole worldview as a result.

Reminds me of when I saw a recipe which called for palm sugar. The comments were full of people who were outraged at the inclusion of such an exploitative, unsustainable ingredient. Of course, they were actually thinking of palm oil (palm sugar production is largely sustainable) but had just pattern-matched ‘palm’ as ‘that bad food thing’.

Load More