JoshuaBlake

91Joined Sep 2019

Comments
19

This stuff also varies a lot by country. I'm guessing this is UK focused (as US tends to use "advisor" rather than "supervisor").

In addition to the above, what Open Philanthropy's exposure looks like would be informative to the wider community IMO. Eg: is it just a fairly standard investment portfolio or are they more exposed to Meta than an index would be.

CEA and 80k are both part of Effective Ventures. As far as I can tell, that means they're legally the same entities (split into UK and USA operations) and largely funded by Open Philanthropy. Several board members are shared between Effective Ventures and the FTX Future Fund.

Aside: while fact-checking this comment, I found the 80,0000 donors page which I think is a commendable amount of transparency. Other EA organisations should consider replicating.

If CEA do not want to be driven by the community, I think they should consider whether they should present themselves as representatives of the community. For instance, their ownership of effectivealtruism.org and branding their events as Effective Altruism Global (as opposed to say, adding "Centre for" to each of these).

What does "as things stand" mean? If we invented AGI tomorrow? That doesn't seem like a useful prediction.

I think it's hard to maintain that you're not trying to represent the movement if you call your event "Effective Altruism Global" and own/run effectivealtruism.com

I think I agree on most of this post but I'm unsure what concrete actions it suggests, especially for the median community member (as opposed to say Open Phil).

The approach of Cotra criticised here could be interpreted as Bayesian model averaging I think. This seems fine, maybe Roodman disagrees, but I think he needs to expand a bit.

I currently use Guesstimate for things like you're proposing. Why should I move to Squiggle? Do you recommend Squiggle directly or via the Google Sheets interface you've developed here?

Load More