I wish the EA community would disband and disappear and expect it to cause enormous harm in the future.

I would be curious to hear you expand more on this:

• What is your confidence level? (e.g. is it similar to the confidence you had in "very few people travel for EAG", or is it something like 90%?)
• What scenarios are you worried about? E.g. is it more about EA hastening the singularity by continuing to help research labs, or about EA making a government-caused slowdown less likely and less effective?
• What is your main theory of change at the moment with rationalist community building, and how is it different from EA community building? Is it mostly focused on "slowing down AI progress, pivotal acts, intelligence enhancement"?

Thanks! I was using old data, I updated the table.

I'm surprised there were only five

at least historically very few people travel for EAG. I was surprised by this when I did the surveys and analytics for this when I ran EAG in 2015 and 2016. 

Here are some numbers from Swapcard for EAG London 2024:

55% of attendees were not from the UK, 14% of attendees were from the US, at least based on Swapcard data

I think it's important for readers of this forum to know that mods don't delete comments for these reasons.

Is there any information you could share about this (e.g. the thread you had commented on, or at least the year when it happened?)

the one time I posted a comment about a prominent AI ethics person that was relatively harsh (I think with some justification), it got deleted by the mods on the grounds that they didn't want to "undermine the potential for further engagement"

Do you have a link to that interaction? I can't think of any case where mods deleted comments that didn't contain personal information^[1], but it might have happened before I started reading the forum.

1. ^{^}

   edit: except when a user asks to delete their comments, but I think that should count as if the user was deleting the comments themselves

I think these numbers are too optimistic and unlikely to be true in 2024, but I don't have a good source for more up-to-date numbers.

THL estimated $2.63 per cage-freed hen in 2022, significantly less effective than 66 years per dollar. And that's an estimate of average cost-effectiveness, not an estimate of the cost-effectiveness of marginal funding (which is likely to be much lower)

First, the easy one:

Does the dashboard tracker account for inflation?

At the moment it does not. It does account for variable exchange rates (e.g. if you report your income in GBP but donate in USD, it considers the exchange rate on the day of the donation to calculate the percentage of income that was donated), so we could use the same system to account for inflation/discount rates.

I think the "correct" way to handle it is to do all the calculations in constant dollars, adjusting for inflation

This would be a reasonable approach. I think another reasonable approach might be to consider interest rates instead of inflation: if someone donated $1,000 in 2010 that they would have otherwise invested, they have given much more than $1,000 of their 2023 wealth (even adjusting for inflation).

In general, I really like this sentence from our FAQ on how members calculate income

The goal of this advice is to help members stick to their plan of taking significant action to benefit others. All guidelines about how to calculate income should be thought of as serving that goal.

In practice, it's very hard to give exact guidance on what "10%" means in every case ^[1], so we usually recommend people follow the "spirit" of the pledge and give what they would consider as 10% of their lifetime income. (Which in many cases could be inflation-adjusted)

I'm not sure if adding an option for considering discount rates in the pledge dashboard would help members give more or give better, but if there's enough user interest we can definitely consider it.

1. ^{^}

   This usually comes up for things like tax deductions/rebates and salary sacrifices. E.g. when only some of your donations are deductible, or when you set your own salary

I don't think it's accurate to say that "EAs have quickly pivoted to viewing AI companies as adversaries, after a long period of uneasily viewing them as necessary allies."

My understanding is that no matter how you define "EAs," many people have always been supportive of working with/at AI companies, and many others sceptical of that approach.

I expect (~ 75%) that the decision to "funnel" EAs into jobs at AI labs will become a contentious community issue in the next year.

My understanding is that this has been a contentious issue for many years already.

80,000 hours wrote a response to this last year, Scott Alexander had written about it in 2022, and Anthropic split from OpenAI in 2021. Do you mean that you expect this to become significantly more salient in the next year?

The best proxy for probability an option will expire in the money is the delta of the option.

Thank you. Here's an explanation from Wikipedia for others like me new to this.

Looking at the delta here and here, the market would seem to imply a ~5% chance of NVDA going below 450, which is not consistent with the ~15% in the article derived from the IV. Is it mostly because of a high risk-free interest rate?

I wonder which value would be more calibrated, or if there's anything I could read to understand this better. It seems valuable to be able to easily find rough market-implied probabilities for future prices.