Exciting! I just filled out the form.
I think this is really difficult to truly assess because there is a huge confounder. The more you age the worse your memory gets, your creativity decreases, your ability to focus decreases, etc., etc.
If all of that was fixed with anti-aging it may not be true that science progresses one funeral at a time because the people at the top of their game can keep producing great work instead of becoming geriatric while still holding status/power in the system.
Also, it could be a subconscious thing: "why bother truly investigating my beliefs at age 70, I'm going t... (read more)
This is a good comment. I'd like to respond but it feels like a lot of typing... haha
but that’s not the same as seeing improvements in leaders’ quality
I just mean the world is trending towards democracies and away from totalitarianism.
It’s inherently easier to attain and keep power by any means necessary with zero ethics
Yes, but 100x easier? Probably not. What if the great minds have 100x the numbers and resources? Network effects are strong
There’s another asymmetry where it’s often easier to destroy/attack/kill than build something.
Same ... (read more)
I agree, it feels like a stakesy decision! And I'm pretty aligned with longtermist thinking, I just think that "entire future at risk due to totalitarianism lock-in due to removing death from aging" seems really unlikely to me. But I haven't really thought about it too much so I guess I'm really uncertain here as we all seem to be.
"what year you guess it would first have been good to grant people immortality?"
I kind of reject the question due to 'immortality' as that isn't the decision we're currently faced with. (unless you're only interested in this spec... (read more)
Of course, it would, but if you're reducing the risk of totalitarian lock-in from 0.4% to 0.39% (obviously made up numbers) by waiting 200 years I would think that's a mistake that costs billions of lives.
The thing that's hard to internalize (at least I think) is that by waiting 200 years to start anti-aging efforts you are condemning billions of people to an early death with a lifespan of ~80 years.
You'd have to convince me that waiting 200 years would reduce the risk of totalitarian lock-in so much that it offsets billions of lives that would be guaranteed to "prematurely end".
Totalitarian lock-in is scary to think about and billions of people's lives ending prematurely is just text on a screen. I would assume that the human brain can easily simulate the everyday horror of a total totalitarian world. But it's impossible for your brain to digest even 100,000,000 premature deaths, forget billions and billions.
But we're not debating if immortality over the last thousand years would have been better or not, we're looking at current times and then estimating forward, right? (I agree a thousand years ago immortality would have been much much riskier than starting today)
In today's economy/society great minds can instantly coordinate and outnumber the dictators by a large margin. I believe this trend will continue and that if you allow all minds to continue the great minds will outgrow the dictator minds and dominate the equation.
Dictators are much more likely to die... (read more)
When thinking about the tail of dictators don't you also have to think of the tail of good people with truly great minds you would be saving from death? (People like John von Neumann, Benjamin Franklin, etc.)
Overall, dictators are in a very tough environment with power struggles and backstabbing, lots of defecting, etc. while great minds tend to cooperate, share resources, and build upon each other.
Obviously, there are a lot more great minds doing good than 'great minds' wishing to be world dictators. And it seems to trend in the right direction. Com... (read more)
Congrats on winning the hackathon! Very Impressive! I'm excited to see how this project progresses, this seems like a great opportunity to improve the traditional funding and non profit sector without taking huge crazy leaps.
I am also confused about NPX: it cannot be that if the funding fails to make impact then the investor invests other funding principle?
Sorry, what do you mean by this?
Really impressive post, some great deep thinking here. I saw earlier drafts and it has definitely grown and improved. I'm proud to be working with you on this project, thank you for your time and effort! And thanks for 1% of the impact as well, I appreciate that.For anyone looking for a simple real-world example I have this WIP document on how it could have been used to kickstart climate change action in the past. I'm trying to figure out a way to easily convey the concept and benefits of an impact market to a general audience (non EA/Rationalist people)
Thanks for shouting out https://www.impactcerts.com/ and our Discord!
We just hacked together V1 during ETH Denver's hackathon last weekend but we're going to be iterating towards a very serious market over the next few months.
If anyone wants to stay up-to-date on impact certificates or even better, wants to help build it (or support us in any way) then feel free to join our small but growing Discord.
Incredible. Thanks so much, I'll reply here to let you know how we made out!
Great post! I'm unlikely going to itemize my taxes so is there a simpler way my GF and I can take advantage of the best bonuses? We can countertrade each other on the same book if that helps. Are there low-hanging fruit bonuses in NJ? https://www.americangaming.org/state/new-jersey/?type=activity
If you're thinking about something about GiveWell a catchy line might be something like:
"The best charities are 100 times more effective than others, GiveWell is a nonprofit that finds these charities and recommends them so your donation goes the furthest (or so your donation can save the most lives)."
Your post/idea reminds me of "Social Impact Bonds": https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/social-impact-bonds.html
Seems sorta similar except instead of private investors it's an open market for regular people to make a profit from their good policy investments.
This is great!
I had a similar idea regarding the crypto community as a great potential source of EA funding but I'm thinking more for-profit than strictly donation. It might be possible to tie crypto profits to EA funding by creating an impact certificate DAO.
I have a working project proposal I've been getting feedback on, if anyone is interested in reading it and giving me their thoughts just message me and I'll send you the link!
I would love to connect with the EffectiveCrypto.org team to see if we can bounce some ideas off or learn from each other.
Bob does lose cash of his balance sheet, but his net asset position stays the same, because he's gained an IC that he can resell.
What if no one buys it?