Posts
Wiki Contributions
Comments
FWIW I broadly agree with Peter here (more so than the original post).
FWIW the EA forum seems subjectively much better to me than it did ~2 years ago, both in platform and in content, and much of that intuitively seems plausibly traceable to specific labor of the EA forum team. Thanks for all your work!
If you know of work on how AI might cause great power conflict, please let me know
Phrases to look for include "accidental escalation" or "inadvertent escalation" or "strategic stability," along with "AI" or "machine learning." Michael Horowitz and Paul Scharre have both written a fair bit on this, e.g. here.
[EA has] largely moved away from explicit expected value calculations and cost-effectiveness analyses.
How so? I hadn't gotten this sense. Certainly we still do lots of them internally at Open Phil.
Re: cost-effectiveness analyses always turning up positive, perhaps especially in longtermism. FWIW that hasn't been my experience. Instead, my experience is that every time I investigate the case for some AI-related intervention being worth funding under longtermism, I conclude that it's nearly as likely to be net-negative as net-positive given our great uncertainty and therefore I end up stuck doing almost entirely "meta" things like creating knowledge and talent pipelines.
Much of the concrete life saving and life improvement that GiveWell top charities have done with GiveWell-influenced donations.
Is the claimed dissolution by MIRI folks published somewhere?
Maybe the John A Hartford Foundation.
Various utilitarianism- and Peter Singer-motivated efforts in global poverty and animal welfare, decades before the modern effective altruism community emerged.
Empirical development economics and GBD-prioritized global health interventions.
Of course, the "rationalist" and "transhumanist" communities have strong similarities, and large chunks of them have essentially merged with EA.
There are various efforts aimed at more widespread use of cost-benefit analysis, e.g. see Sunstein's book.
It's mostly about skillsets, context/experience with both the DC policy world, and familiarity with Open Philanthropy's programmatic priorities.
A large portion of the value from programs like this comes from boosting fellows into career paths where they spend at least some time working in the US government, and many of the most impactful government roles require US citizenship. We are therefore mainly focused on people who have (a plausible pathway to) citizenship and are interested in US government work. Legal and organizational constraints means it is unlikely that we will be able to sponsor visas even if we run future rounds.
This program is US-based because the US government is especially important to our programmatic priorities. That said, it's possible we'll run (or fund someone else to run) a similar program in one or more non-US countries in the future, perhaps most likely in the UK.
I'm not involved in this program, but I would like to see that happen. Though note that some of the readings are copyrighted.