Richard I really love your writing, but as a parent I find it so hard to just sit and read stuff. 95% of the forum's content I get via the podcast feeds. Now, I don't expect everyone to go full Experimental History or Joe Carlsmith and audio narrate each post, but unless you're wanting to keep things on Substack turf, you might consider cross-posting the full thing here (like Bentham's Bulldog did for the critique of the wired article). I don't ask this of everyone, so please consider this a compliment: I love your work and want it in my ears.^[1] 

1. ^{^}

   That sounded weirder than I meant it to

Hanania gives some interesting arguments for why here: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/effective-altruism-thinks-youre-hitler

One lens to look at this is less through the ‘we’re all similarly qualified’ like the AMA but more through the ‘we’re working with the same values’ or ‘we’re working on similar problems’ like the Institute of Public Administration Australia. These have no qualification requirements. Still they offer similar things to what ea communities try to do https://qld.ipaa.org.au/for-individuals/

These examples at the end are interesting and worth me mulling over. I do get the sense that Greenpeace or the NAACP would do many of the things you do

That’s a good point. All AMA members have to meet certain criteria. I can see how ‘’8 week reading group” pales in comparison to a medical degree.

Fixed thx

I'm interested in the authors' take on this question: Change my mind: EA national organisations should be 'professional associations' not 'communities'

I'll look into it. The census data part seems okay. Collecting a representative sample would be harder (e.g., literacy rates are lower, so I don't know how to estimate responses for those groups).

Thanks Peter. Fixed!

Thanks Seb. I'm not that surprised—public surveys in the Existential Risk Persuasion tournament were pretty high (5% for AI). I don't think most people are good at calibrating probabilities between 0.001% and 10% (myself included).

I don't have strong hypotheses why people 'mostly support' something they also want treated with such care. My weak ones would be 'people like technology but when asked about what the government should do, want them to keep them safe (remove biggest threats).' For example, Australians support getting nuclear submarines but also support the ban on nuclear weapons. I don't necessarily see this as a contradiction—"keep me safe" priorities would lead to both. I don't know if our answers would have changed if we made the trade-offs more salient (e.g., here's what you'd lose if we took this policy action prioritising risks). Interested in suggestions for how we could do that better.

It'd be easy for us to run in other countries. We'll put the data and code online soon. If someone's keen to run the 'get it in the hands of people who want to use it' piece, we could also do the 'run the survey and make a technical report one'. It's all in R so the marginal cost of another country is low. We'd need access to census data to do the statistical adjustment to estimate population agreement (but that should be easy to see if possible).