I currently hold an EA Grant to improve and expand the EA Wiki content. If you have any feedback about my work, you are welcome to submit it, anonymously or otherwise, here:
One thing that might help would be "meta-forecasting". We could later have some expert forecasters predict the accuracy of average statements made by different groups in different domains. I'd predict that they would have given pretty poor scores to most of these groups.
I agree with your meta-meta-forecast.
Okay, I went ahead and renamed it.
I tried to incorporate parts of that section, and in the process reorganized and expanded the article. Feel free to edit anything that seems inadequate.
Thanks, David. In light of this comment, I now lean towards renaming the entry resilient food. Michael, what do you think?
Thanks for linking to that article, which I hadn't seen. I updated the 'certificates of impact' entry with a brief summary of the proposal.
Thanks for creating these entries. My sense is that Scheffler doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion. Thoughts?
This may be a good opportunity to mention that although I spent quite a bit of time thinking about these criteria, I'm still rather uncertain and am open to adopting a more inclusivist approach to entries for individual people. If you have any views on what the criteria should be, feel free to share them here.
Sounds good. I haven't reviewed the relevant posts, so I don't have a clear sense of whether "management" or "mentoring" is a better choice; the latter seems preferable other things equal, since "management" is quite a vague term, but this is only one consideration. In principle, I could see a case for having two separate entries, depending on how many relevant posts there are and how much they differ. I would suggest that you go ahead and do what makes most sense to you, since you seem to have already looked at this material and probably have better intuitions. Otherwise I can take a closer look myself in the coming days.
Thank you for this very thoughtful and useful comment.
It may help to distinguish two separate claims you make, and address them separately:
Most of your comment focuses on (1), but towards the end you seem to suggest this is part of a much broader argument for (2).
I was assuming that "descendant" already carries a certain connotation that excludes these cases, but I agree ideally the definition should rule them out explicitly. Unfortunately, since Holden has dropped the explicit definition in terms of human ability and moral status, it's not entirely clear what sort of revision would be adequate. Maybe add something like "sufficiently similar to humans in the relevant respects", though it would later have to be clarified that these entities can also be very different from humans in other respects.
Further to my previous comment, Holden kindly got back to me and provided a helpful answer. In short, his original draft of "Digital people would be an even bigger deal" used (a) and (b) as a definition of "digital person", but he later revised it (for reasons he cannot currently remember) and instead offered the vaguer statement included as the first quote in the current version of the article as his main characterization of digital personhood.
In light of Holden's clarification, I propose the current definition:
A digital person is a human-like entity running on digital computing hardware or a descendant of such an entity.
I also think that parts of the rest of the article should be revised. Given Holden's clarification, it doesn't seem correct to state that he is "arguing" for the claims in question. I'm inclined to just remove the final two paragraphs (i.e. the text starting with "In particular..."), perhaps expanding the article to include other things Holden has said about digital people that are less open to multiple interpretations.