50Joined Jan 2018


Giant congratulations! Are you open to working on neartermist projects? 

I worked closely with Kat for a year or so (2018-2019) when I was working at (and later leading) Charity Science Health. She's now a good friend.  

I considered Kat a good and ethical leader. I personally learned a lot from working with her. In her spending and life choices, she has shown a considerable moral courage: paying herself only $12K/year, dropping out of college because she didn't think it passed an impact cost-benefit test. Obviously that doesn't preclude the possibility that she has willfully done harmful things, but I think willfully bad behavior by Kat Woods is quite unlikely, a priori. 

With limited manpower, GiveWell also has to prioritize which CEA improvements to make--and added complexity can moreover increase the risk of errors. 

I have heard the claim that there were no professional ethicists among the authors of the Belmont Report. 

What do real existing bioethicists think of compensation for kidney donors? 

Heads up that it's still in the headline version - though I think as an average it's fine and useful to include. 

Amazing. Quick comments on "how much is spent" (GDP). 

  • At first glance this looks like nominal GDP, not adjusted for changes in prices. That's more literally "how much is spent" but less informative about how people's welfare and capabilities are changing over time.

Can someone tell me things about when I should expect the next doubling, i.e. in what year should I expect daily global spending to exceed $526 billion? Feels complicated and important; I’m ignorant about what sensible projections are and how much uncertainty there is.

Will any of the lectures/talks not be recorded? It would be nice if Swapcard could indicate this.

I think that complex cluelessness implies we should be very skeptical of interventions whose claim to cost-effectiveness is through their direct, proximate effects. As has been well argued elsewhere, the long-term effects of these actions probably dominate. 

In my reading, the 80,000 Hours article in the link does not fully support this claim. In the section "Can we actually influence the future," it identifies four ways actions today can influence the long-term future. But it doesn't provide a solid case about why most interventions would  influence the long-term future, rather than having their effects dissipate over time. 

I didn't see any molluscs here. Would you consider adding a mollusc?

Load More