Metaculus forecast on street votes:51 forecasters.
I think the resolution criteria on this question aren't great (I wrote them, sorry all) so I think possibly they understate the likelihood (they ask for plot use to be voted on , which in hindsight may have been too high a bar).Also, Michael Gove, the Cabinet member and head of the UK Housing Department recently supported the idea."Homeowners will be able to band together with their neighbours to hold a referendum on adding extensions to their properties, Michael Gove has said. This from... (read more)
I thought the Founder Pledge cost effectiveness he linked made a good case for the cause area in general:https://www.getguesstimate.com/models/15171I'm less sure about the specific interventions.
I recommend a thread of them. I rarely see poeple using hashtags currently.And I probably agree you could/should write them yourselves but:- other people might think different things are interesting than you do
How do people feel about hearing about effective charities?How do people feel about hearing about effective careers?
https://calendly.com/nathanpmyoung/omni Happy to have a call some time
EA podcasts and videosEach EA org should pay $10 bounty to the best twitter thread talking about any episode. If you could generate 100 quality twitter threads on 80,000 hours episodes that for $1000 that would be really cheap. People would quote tweet and discuss and it would make the whole set of knowledge much more legible.
The EA forum is one of the key public hubs for EA discourse (alongside, in my opinion, facebook, twitter, reddit and a couple of blogs). I respect the forum team's work in trying to build better infrastructure for its users.The EA forum is active in attempting to improve experience for its users. This makes it easier for me to contribute with things like questions, short forms, sequences etc, etc. I wouldn't say this post provides deep truth, but it seeks to build infrastructure which matches the way EAs are. To me, that's an analogy to articles which... (read more)
I edited the of wikipedia on Doing Good Better to try and make it more reflective of the book and Will's current views. Let me know how you think I did.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_MacAskill&editintro=Template%3ABLP_editintro#Doing_Good_Better
EA criticism[Epistemic Status: low, I think this is probably wrong, but I would like to debug it publicly]If I have a criticism of EA along Institutional Decision Making lines, it is this:For a movement that wants to change how decisions get made, we should make those changes in our own organisations first.Examples of good progress:- prizes - EA orgs have offered prizes for innovation- voting systems - it's good that the forum is run on upvotes and that often I think EA uses the right tool for the job in terms of votingThings I would like to see more... (read more)
Factional infighting[epistemic status - low, probably some element are wrong]tl;dr- communities have a range of dispute resolution mechanisms, whether voting to public conflict to some kind of civil war- some of these are much better than others- EA has disputes and resources and it seems likely that there will be a high profile conflict at some point- What mechanisms could we put in place to handle that conflict constructively and in a positive sum way?When a community grows as powerful as EA is, there can be disagreements about resource allocation.  ... (read more)
It's up to you, but I will say it sounds like a bold move (which is British for "do it at your own risk, sounds a bit bad to me).
I wish I wanted to use it like I use wikipedia - I wish I trusted it to be a broad summary of the articles beneath the tag, rather than a quick overview.
Yes. Though I think it might be intended to be more than that.
Yeah it's my strong view that if the wiki is set up right, the content should more or less create itself. That the wiki isn't useful suggests that people don't feel comfortable adding stuff to it. Personally, I'd like ways to integrate it more with posts and encourage poeple to correct errors - perhaps people can tag phrases in posts with links to the wiki and then people would hover over those links to understand the concepts. When that's happening, people would find and correct errors as they saw them.
From Linchuan Zhang
Sometimes people ask me to not get karma from very simple responses. So I create these comments which people can downvote. But here, people were upvoting them instead. I haven't come up with a good solution here.
Also when I saw the last post was controversial I mean that it had 15 karma and 37 votes. Which is grimace emoji.
This ridiculously popular post from Habiba on EA orgs as Zendaya outfits https://twitter.com/FreshMangoLassi/status/1475881815298691073?s=20
I like that we have a wiki attached to one of the biggest EA sites.
Downvote this comment to ensure Nathan's karma stays level
Some related thoughts https://twitter.com/NathanpmYoung/status/1478342847187271687?s=20
EA WikiI've decided I'm going to just edit the wiki to be like the wiki I want.Currently the wiki feels meticulously referenced but lacking in detail. I'd much prefer it to have more synthesised content which is occasionally just someone's opinion. If you dislike this approach, let me know.
Why do posts get more upvotes than questions with the same info?I wrote this question: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ckcoSe3CS2n3BW3aT/what-ea-projects-could-grow-to-become-megaprojectsSome others wrote this post summarising it:https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/faezoENQwSTyw9iop/ea-megaprojects-continuedWhy do you think the summary got more upvotes. I'm not upset, I like a summary too, but in my mind, a question that anyone can submit answers to or upvote current answers is much more useful. So I am confused. Can any suggest why?
This form of the post has got more votes than the original (which was a question post). Why do poeple think that is?- do people prefer posts to questions?- is this better explained/worked through?
To me, prediction markets/voting systems are the answer to this problem. It seems reasonable to me to have a fund:- which gives based on votes weighted by forecasting record - or which allows users to upvote/downvote different causesThis shouldn't be all money allocation but I'd like to see EA experimenting with forms of democratisation.
How do we solve this?
These individuals—often senior scholars within the field—told us in private that they were concerned that any critique of central figures in EA would result in an inability to secure funding from EA sources, such as OpenPhilanthropy. We don't know if these concerns are warranted. Nonetheless, any field that operates under such a chilling effect is neither free nor fair. Having a handful of wealthy donors and their advisors dictate the evolution of an entire field is bad epistemics at best and corruption at worst.
If I imagine myse... (read more)
I think offering financial incentives specifically for red teaming makes sense. I tend to think red teaming is systematically undersupplied because people are concerned (often correctly in my experience with EA) that it will cost them social capital, and financial capital can offset that.
I'm a fan of the CEEALAR funding model -- giving small amounts to dedicated EAs, with less scrutiny and less prestige distribution. IMO it is less incentive-distorting than more popular EA funding models.
Most these ideas sound interesting to me. However —
- OpenPhil making a statement to fund high quality work they disagree with
I'm not quite sure what this means? I'm reading it as "funding work which looks set to make good progress on a goal OP don't believe is especially important, or even net bad". And that doesn't seem right to me.
Similar ideas that could be good —
I'm especially keen on the latter!
How could we solve this?Singer started the Journal of Controversial Ideas, which lets people publish under pseudonyms. https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/
Maybe more should try and publish criticisms there, or there could be funding for an EA specific journal with similar rules.I guess there are problems with this suggestion, let me know what they are.
I like the idea of setting up a home for criticisms of EA/longtermism. Although I guess the EA Forum already exists as a natural place for anyone to post criticisms, even anonymously. So I guess the question is — what is the forum lacking? My tentative answer might be prestige / funding. Journals offer the first. The tricky question on the second is: who decides which criticisms get awarded? If it's just EAs, this would be disingenuous.
You write well. Funny at the end.
By Ven Graham
Frown, will edit.
EA Wiki editing call - edit whatever wiki you want while on a call. We're gonna try running 4 sessions in Jan and Feb, 10:00 UTC every 2 weeks, staring 8th January.edit I tried to share an event link but I couldn't find an easy way:- DM me (or message on twitter @nathanpmyoung, email firstname.lastname@example.org or text 447891020271) if you want - Tell me a really easy way to make and share events.Ahmed Yusef and I have been meeting and editing a small EA wiki together and thought we'd throw it open, feel free to join us in a laid back editing session of a wiki of your choice.
Relatedly, a behaviour I dislike is being repeatedly publicly wrong without changing and acknowledging fault. Mainstream Christianity is guilty of this, though so are many other social movements.I think if it turns out that short AI timelines are wrong, those with short timelines should acknowledge it and the EA as a whole should seek to understand why we got it so wrong. I will think it odd if those who make repeatedly wrong predictions continue to be taken seriously.Also, I'd like to see more concrete testable short term predictions from those we trust with AI predictions. Are they good forecasters in general? Are they well calibrated or insightful in ways we can test?
takes a long breath from vape pen
Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time.
Okay, how about now?
Someone used GPT-3 to make an EA tarot deck
Why image break?(for me this image has broken, even though it is hosted on the forum)
I think a clearer picture of how easy it is to get jobs would be really useful. Like there could be a job survey people fill out about how many jobs they applied for and what their skills are. Then we could have better expectations.
Strongly agree, EA organizations should post the rejection rates for jobs they’ve posted.
Consider where EAs are and post in those places. Whether on twitter, the EA jobseekers slack, newsletters, etc etc.
Thanks for all you've done Aaron. It means a lot. Thanks for responding, for reading drafts, for organising AMAs, along with all the other things you've done.
Has this been posted to twitter with the handle @effective_jobs?
Sure, but again, It's one post a month. Also if those are the only memes you like only upvote those. I guess I don't disagree, but I still like this post.
By David MearsPeter Albert David Singer --> "Pigs are nerved!" I blarted.
John Stuart Mill --> utilons' raj.html
Philippa Ruth Foot --> Troli! If phat, hop up!
Immanuel Kant --> Make Man Unlit
Do you think the memes posted here trivialise our message? Also Given that memes are a form of language that conveys ideas, isn't it worth learning how to use them to spread our ideas faithfully?
Can we discuss this a little?I'm curious why you wouldn't want one clearly labelled post a month:- You can ignore it- If it's low quality you won't see it anywayYou say that you want meme posts confined to Reddit, which suggests to me you don't think they are the right sort of content for the forum. Is that the reason? If so, how are (suitable) memes different from short stories.
I'd expect people to react very different to memes, so I'm very open to being persuaded that having memes on the Forum is in fact a good idea. But my independent impression is that memes to some degree trivialize our message, and that insofar as there's a place for them in the larger EA ecosystem, it is not on the Forum, which I see primarily as a place for conducting high-quality, high-fidelity intellectual discussion.
What if there were only one per month?Cos I agree that if there were 3 a day I'd think that was too much.