Jaime Sevilla

Director @ Epoch
Working (0-5 years experience)
2529Mexico City, CDMX, MexicoJoined Mar 2019


Director of Epoch, an organization investigating the future of Artificial Intelligence.

Currently working on:

  • Macroeconomic models of AI takeoff
  • Trends in Artificial Intelligence
  • Forecasting cumulative records
  • Improving forecast aggregation

I am also one of the coordinators of Riesgos Catastróficos Globales, a Spanish-speaking network of experts working on Global Catastrophic Risks.  

I also run Connectome Art, an online art gallery where I host art I made using AI.


Riesgos Catastróficos Globales
Aggregating Forecasts
Forecasting quantum computing


I thought that the point was to help with active reading and little more.

Separately from the FTX issue, I'd be curious about you dissecting what of Zoe's ideas you think are worth implementing and what would be worse and why.


My takes:

  • Set up whistleblower protection schemes for members of EA organisations  => seems pretty good if there is a public commitment from an EA funder to something like "if you whistleblow we'll cover your salary if you are fired while you search another job" or something like that
  • Transparent listing of funding sources on each website of each institution => Seems good to keep track of who receives money from who
  • Detailed and comprehensive conflict of interest reporting in grant giving => My sense is that this is already handled sensibly  enough, though I don't have great insight on grantgiving institutions
  • Within the next 5 years, each EA institution should reduce their reliance on EA funding sources by 50% => this seems bad for incentives and complicated to put into action
  • Within 5 years: EA funding decisions are made collectively => seems like it would increase friction and likely decrease the quality of the decisions, though I am willing to be proven wrong
  • No fireside chats at EAG with leaders. Instead, panel/discussions/double cruxing disagreements between widely known and influential EAs and between different orgs and more space for the people that are less known => Meh, I'm indifferent since I just don't consume that kind of content so I don't know the effects it has, though I am erring towards it being somewhat good to give voice to others
  • Increase transparency over 
    • Who gets accepted/rejected to EAG and why => seems hard to implement, though there could be some model letters or something
    • leaders/coordination forum => I don't sense this forum is nowhere as important as these recommendations imply
  •  Set up: ‘Online forum of concerns’ => seems somewhat bad / will lead to overly focusing on things that are not that important, though good to survey people on concerns

 I am so dumb I was mistakenly using odds instead of probs to compute the brier score :facepalm:

And yes, you are right, we should extremize before aggregating. Otherwise, the method is equivalent to geo mean of odds.

It's still not very good though

Thanks Jonas!

  1. I'd forgotten about that great article! Linked.
  2. I feel some of these would be good bachelor / MSc theses yeah!

It would, however, send a credible signal that the EA community does not benefit from fraud, and create an incentive to 1) scrutinize better future donors and 2) to not engage in fraud for the sake of the community.

Without more context, I'd say that fit a distribution to each array and then aggregate them using a weighted linear aggregate of the resulting CDFs, assigning a weight proportional to your confidence on the assumptions that produced the array.

Depends on whether you are aggregating distributions or point estimates.

If you are aggregating distributions, I would follow the same procedure outlined in this post, and use the continuous version of the geometric mean of odds I outline in footnote 1 of this post.

If you are aggregating point estimates, at this point I would use the procedure explained in this paper, which is taking a sort of extremized average. I would consider a log transform depending on the quantity you are aggregating. (though note that I have not spent as much time thinking about how to aggregate point estimates)

Some cool people from the Spanish-Speaking community:

  • The coordinator Sandra Malagón, who in the space of one year has kickstarted an EA hub in Mexico and helped raise a community in Chile and Colombia.
  • Pablo Melchor, founder of Ayuda Efectiva, the Spanish GiveWell
  • Melanie Basnak, senior research manager at Rethink Priorities
  • Juan García, researcher at ALLFED, who works in food security
  • Ángela María Aristizábal, researcher at FHI, who works in GCRs and community building
  • Pablo Stafforini, who built the EA Forum Wiki, is involved in many cool projects and has been involved since the very beginning of EA
  • Michelle Bruno, an early career person who works now in community building in Mexico and in a biosecurity project
  • Jaime Fernández who works in community building in Colombia and is researching some philosophy topics
  • Laura González, who co-coordinates the Spanish speaking community and leads the Spanish translation project.

Well, time-travel machines are a type of hardware... 👅

Load More