All of jchen1's Comments + Replies

Thanks very much for this write-up, I learned a lot from it!

I’m a bit confused by your position on the counterfactual impact of Pugwash on political leaders’ views.

On the one hand:

  • You say in your summary table that there is ‘weak positive evidence’ for Claim 4, the full version of which is that “Soviet Pugwash scientists made a difference to their government’s perspective on anti-ballistic missiles." (as an aside, I think it would be clearer to change the shorthand for Claim 4 from 'Relaying ideas to governments' to something that highlights the necessity
... (read more)

Thanks for the great analysis! 
Your first post said "My current best guess is that, between now and 2100, we face a ~35% chance of a serious, direct conflict between Great Powers." This seems to be the estimate that is used in your guesstimate model for "probability of a major great power war breaking out before 2100". 
But in this post you say  your best guess for the chance of at least one great power war breaking out this century is 45%. Not sure why there is this discrepancy, am I missing something? 

"I have regularly seen proposals in the community to stop and regulate AI development" - Are there any public ones you can signpost to or are these all private proposals?

Answer by jchen1Feb 08, 20222
0
0

A couple have already mentioned it but I'll repeat the request for nutrition advice. In particular: As a vegan, what supplements (aside from B12) should I be taking? Are there any that may be harmful? Are there any evidence-backed dietary interventions that improve cognitive performance?

Re your second point, a counter would be that the implementation of recommendations arising from ERS will often have impacts on the population around at the time of implementation, and the larger those impacts are the less possible specialization seems. E.g. if total utilitarians/longtermists were considering seriously pursuing the implementation of global governance/ubiquitous surveillance, this might risk such a significant loss of value to non-utilitarian non-longtermists that it's not clear total utilitarians/longtermists should be left to dominate the debate.

2
Mau
2y
I mostly agree. I'm not sure I see how that's a counter to my second point though. My second point was just that (contrary to what the paper seems to assume) some amount of ethical non-representativeness is not in itself bad: Also, if we're worried about implementation of large policy shifts (at least, if we're worried about this under "business as usual" politics), I think utilitarians/longtermists can't and won't actually dominate the debate, because policymaking processes in modern democracies by default engage a large and diverse set of stakeholders. (In other words, dominance in the internal debates of a niche research field won't translate into dominance of policymaking debates--especially when the policy in question would significantly affect many people.)

Thank you for the detailed response, very helpful!

Thanks for the thorough reply, and I've now read the second post which suggested more potential for direct impact than I had initially thought. On (2), I agree value drift wasn't a great term for what I had in mind. Thanks for bringing out the nuance there

Thanks for this write-up! A few questions, some of which you may already be planning to address in future posts:

  1. How long do you think it takes to pick up the  vast majority (say >80%) of the transferable skills mentioned? I.e. is it likely that an optimal strategy may be to go into a top consulting firm for 1-2 years and then use the skills, brand and connections to do something more directly impactful? Roughly what proportion of consultants you interviewed/in the EA and Consulting Network are pursuing this strategy vs those who think they can maxi
... (read more)
5
Vaidehi Agarwalla
3y
Hi jchen1, thanks for this detailed comment! Note: I reference our second & third posts a lot, which will be published in a few days!  * Gain some of the transferrable skills could take a 1-2 years, although 1 year seems on the low end to me. As you progress in your consulting career you will get different kinds of responsibiities (e.g. directly interfacing with senior clients). We talk a little more abou this on our next posts.  * This 80% rule woudn't apply the connections you make. As you progress in your consulting career you're going to make more connections, and often more important connections (e.g. to senior-level partners and clients). We talk about this in our third post * We think the industry experience you gain is more valuable (we cover getting stafffed on relevant projects in our second post), but it take longer to get (in most cases >2 years to be staffed on specific topics). * We cover some considerations about if/when to leave consulting in our third post and "% of transferrable skills acquired" is one part of the considerations for leaving.  We don't have exact numbers. Most of the consultants we interviewed were still in consulting, but we expect our sample was biased because people in the EACN are more likely to be consultants. The decision to pursue one strategy over another is very dependent on how you want to have an impact - what cause areas you want to contribute to, and what career path you aspire to follow.  We did not explicity ask this, and I think it would be hard to gauge without doing a much more in-depth survey.  I would say that "value drift" implies that your values change, I think "lifestyle drift" might be more accurate (see this post for more) RE: salary / promotion. There are other reasons as well, such as status quo bias, risk aversion, or being too distracted to think about your values (see Habiba's quote above). I wouldn't consder these "value drift" per se. Ancedotally, 1 ex-consultant said they wished they'd lef
Answer by jchen1Aug 12, 202113
0
0

Challenge prize(s) to incentivise the development of innovative solutions in priority areas. These could be prizes for goals already suggested by people in this thread  (e.g. producing resilient food sources, drastic changes to diagnostic testing, meat alternatives underinvested in by the market) or others. 

Quotes from a Nesta report on challenge prizes (caveat that I haven't spent any time looking up opposing evidence/perspectives):
 

By guiding and incentivising the smartest minds, prizes create more diverse solutions. Because prizes only pa

... (read more)
2
RyanCarey
3y
Would be better to review less biased literature e.g. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=review+of+challenge+prizes&btnG=

Thanks for this! I'd love to hear your views on the potential for impact in this career path. For example: (1) What are some positive examples of impact that you/colleagues have been able to have on cause areas that EAs typically care about such as reducing existential risk? How rare is this kind of impact? (2) To what extent are staff in overseas embassies influencing the policy of the UK government vs just communicating it?
(3) How much has the foreign office's chance of making a difference on important global issues been diminished by Brexit? 
No worries if you don't feel comfortable answering all/any of these questions on here. 

1
PatrickL
3y
Thanks for the questions- and sorry for the delay answering. I'll go through 1 and 2 in turn but think 3 is too political for me to answer - sorry! 1)I was instrumental in setting up and playing secretariat to a group of development ministers that convened during the beginning of the covid pandemic. This allowed like-minded ministers to share best practice and coordinate in what was a rapidly changing crisis for many developing countries. Some new principles spun from this group for how to support certain countries and I think it probably made a very slight improvement to how government's development agencies prioritized. The aim was focused on global health and development, but it also demonstrated agility in crisis, and showed UK and Canada's (the co-chairs) ability to convene in these situations. I mainly managed the logistics and advised the policy teams preparing for these meetings - I'd guess my involvement improved the outcomes of the group by a few percent. However, if I hadn't being doing it, someone else would have, probably to a fairly similar standard (though I like to think not quite as well!). For another example: My colleague set up an annual survey of the FCDO (foreign, commonwealth and development office) to forecast what future years will hold for foreign policy. In 2019, the top answer of what could be an unexpected 'black swan' event in the coming year was a global pandemic. I'm not sure how much impact this had on our policy- probably a little. He was in charge of the survey and it seems very plausible that had he (or possibly one of his colleagues or seniors) not been there to come up with this forecast-y question, it would not have been included. My point being that the counterfactual here, unlike my first example, is most of the impact would not have been there without him. I'm relatively new/junior in the FCDO ranks - those working higher up would have examples of higher impact. I believe the counterfactual impact increases somewhat expon