Bio

Participation
2

I live for a high disagree-to-upvote ratio

Comments
118

With that criteria, you would be extremely hard pressed to find any global health charities that avoid the meat-eater problem (or, for that matter, any GCR charities, since those would save the lives of rich people).

However, I would suggest a focus on culturally vegetarian countries such as India could still meet that criteria. Kaya Guides operate there currently.

I looked into this a number of years ago and it doesn't seem like Founders Pledge's methodology has changed since then. You can read their Cause Area Report for more depth, but the primary metric they rate on is tonnes of CO2-equivalent pollutants averted per year per U.S. dollar (CO2-equivalent uses simple weights to compare between different greenhouse gases, such as methane). They have somewhat strong estimates per charity, such that in 2018, the Clean Air Task Force and Coalition for Rainforest Nations came out ahead—but with the proviso that this extrapolated past performance into the future, which isn't a given with lobbying organisations.

I agree that GWWC could use more depth here, and at the same time I tend to agree that they're right to recommend Founders Pledge first.

Answer by huw7
2
0

Plenty of mental health charities are likely to directly improve human suffering for people whose lives they don’t save. It’s less clear how many lives they directly save (some screen out suicidal participants completely), but we know that the number of suicides is relatively low in most countries (India records around 200k suicides per year out of a 1.4b population).

EA mental health charities (in LMICs) include StrongMinds, Vida Plena, and Kaya Guides.

Microsoft have backed out of their OpenAI board observer seat, and Apple will refuse a rumoured seat, both in response to antitrust threats from US regulators, per Reuters.

I don’t know how to parse this—I think it’s likely that the US regulators don’t care much about safety in this decision, and nor do I think it meaningfully changes Microsoft’s power over the firm. Apple’s rumoured seat was interesting, but unlikely to have any bearing either.

huw
13
1
0

Piggybacking off this:

  • How do you evaluate an opportunity once you have it?
  • How do you decide whether to invite Jimmy to make something a main channel video vs a Beast Philanthropy video?
  • What kinds of charities perform the best in terms of views? What about funds raised? (Do either of these metrics influence what charities you pick?)

Sorry, could you explain why ‘many people in the community think this is a necessary first step’ or provide a link? I must’ve missed that one and that sounds surprising to me that outright repealing it (or replacing it with nothing in the case of the GOP’s platform) would be desirable.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Feels like we’re talking past each other—I was explaining why a government might want to behave this way because I felt like it was missing from the discussion. Specifically, I think at the very least that reasonable people can disagree on whether a government with the goal of minimising suffering would paradoxically take longer to develop & test a vaccine (and also I wanted to suggest that the evidence is consistent with the German government having this in mind when shutting it down, rather than, say, the desire to establish their authority for its own sake).

I didn’t pass comment on whether it’s morally justified; that depends on your conception of personal liberty (which we clearly disagree on, but I doubt I’m gonna persuade you here).

huw
5
5
1
2

This argument ignores that ‘serious’ COVID vaccine candidates were available and beginning human trials in March 2020 (some of which became the vaccines you and I probably have in our systems). The counterfactual world still never develops this vaccine; one in which governments were willing to take and push more risks would have just hastened the existing trials rather than encouraging new people to jump into the game.

Even so, given the rich and voluminous history of people that have used ‘vaccines’ to sterilise/kill/deceive minority populations, there’s just no way to trust a random savant who expressly dislikes immigrants to inject anything into you (especially if you’re not in his ingroup). So I also think this story misunderstands the causes for vaccine hesitancy & why a government would prefer—no, require—a vaccine to go through established, non-partisan, accountable organisations & multiple rounds of safety trials.

Having QURI’s code in open source forms explicitly helped me improve Squiggle’s Observable integration & then develop my own smaller subset of Squiggle, so even though I didn’t fork & deploy your code it was super helpful for debugging & adapting!

huw
16
4
0
1

Co-founder Daniel Gross’ thoughts on AI safety are at best unclear beyond this statement. Here is an article he wrote a year ago: The Climate Justice of AI Safety, and he’s also appeared on the Stratechery podcast a few times and spoken about AI safety once or twice. In this space, he’s most well known as an investor, including in Leopold Aschenbrenner’s fund.

I think it would be good for Daniel Gross & Daniel Levy to clarify their positions on AI safety, and what exactly ‘commercial pressure’ means (do they just care about short-term pressure and intend to profit immensely from AGI?).

(Disclosure: I received a ~$10k grant from Daniel in 2019 that was AI-related)

Load more