Mati_Roy

Comments

Cash prizes for the best arguments against psychedelics being an EA cause area

so am understanding you have short AI timelines, and so don't think genetic engineering would have time to pay off, but psychedelics would, and that you think it's of similar relevance as working directly on the problem

Cash prizes for the best arguments against psychedelics being an EA cause area

thanks for your answer!

Genetic engineering doesn't seem to have a comparable track record or a comparable evidence base.

You get humans from primates with genetic modifications, not psychedelic :)

Cash prizes for the best arguments against psychedelics being an EA cause area

oh, by bad. apologies. thanks for the quote!

in terms of augmenting humans, my impression is that genetic engineering is by far the most effective intervention. my understanding is that we're currently making a lot of progress in that area, yet some important research aspects seem neglected, and could have a transformative impact on the world.

I wonder if you disagree

Cash prizes for the best arguments against psychedelics being an EA cause area

I feel like the burden of proof is on you, no? how will psychedelics help avoid astronomical waste?

Which effective altruism projects look disingenuous?

I guess I was working on the assumption that it was rare that people would want to split their donation between local and effective a priori, and my point was that GM wasn't useful to people that didn't already want to split their donations in that way before GM's existence -- but maybe this assumption is wrong actually

Which effective altruism projects look disingenuous?

hummm, I guess it's fine after all. I change my mind. People can just give whatever fraction they were going to give to local charities, and then be matched. And the extra matching to effective charities is a signal from the matcher about their model of the world. I don't think someone that was going to give 100% to another charity than those 9 should use GivingMultiplier though (unless they changed their mind about effective charities). But my guess is that this project has good consequences.

Which effective altruism projects look disingenuous?

I'm henceforth offering a MetaGivingMultiplier. It's the same structure than GivingMultiplier, but replace "local charities" with "GivingMultiplier" and "super-effective charities" with "a cryonics organization" (I recommend https://www.alcor.org/rapid/ or https://www.brainpreservation.org/). Anyone wants to take advantage of my donation match?

h/t: came up with this with Haydn Thomas-Rose

Which effective altruism projects look disingenuous?

On handling posts that may violate Forum rules:

Thanks for the clarifications.

On private vs. public communication:

I don't want to argue for what to do in general, but here in particular my "accusation" consists of doing the math. If I got it wrong, am sure other got it wrong too and it would be useful to clarify publicly.

On that note, I've sent this post along to Lucius of the GivingMultiplier team.

Thank you.

Which effective altruism projects look disingenuous?

I agree with what Kit said as well.

But that the only reason you're not removing it is because of Kit's comment makes me pretty concerned about the forum.

I also disagree that private communication is better than public communication in cases like this.

Which effective altruism projects look disingenuous?

This doesn't change the "indistinguishable from if I gave X" property, but it is a thing that would have been easy to check before posting.

I did check. As you said, it doesn't change the conclusion (it actually makes it worse).

Second, point (b) matters. It seems like a bold assumption to assume that EA charities have reached "market efficiency"

I'm >50% sure that it doesn't fare better, but maybe. In any case, I specified in my OP that my main objection was (a). 

Thus, if you actually think one of the "EA" choices at GivingMultiplier is more valuable than the rest, it seems very likely that you contribute more to their work by choosing them to be matched. 

Yep, I did  mentioned that in my OP.

Did you see anything on the site that actually seemed false to you?

No,  I also mentioned this in OP.

  1. Give people an incentive to think about splitting their donation between "heart" and "head", by...

There's not really a real incentive though. I feel like there's a motte-and-bailey. The motte is that you get to choose one of the 9 charities, the bailey is that the matching to the local charity is actually meaningful.

and the local charity of their choice

That's meaningless as I showed in OP.

If you think they could have been even more clear, or think that most donors will believe something different despite the FAQ, you could say so. But to say that people who use the match "don't understand what's going on" is both uncharitable and, as best I can tell, false.

[...]

I disagree. shrug

Load More