All of Ramiro's Comments + Replies

Reading this made me want to revoke my GWWC pledge (or at least cancel my account). I've been a pledger since 2018, and I will continue donating at least 10% of my income to the charities I find most effective and register it on a spreasheet. I just don't think it is appropriate that GWWC's operations take more credit than it's due for whatever good comes from this, and I would like to be sure they are not using my data - as I doubt that donation records go through rigorous reconciliation. I'd probably already have done it if GWWC webpage allowed it - at least I can find no "delete my account button".

9
Aidan Whitfield🔸
Hi Ramiro, thanks for sharing your concerns. In my response to Vasco’s comment, I explain why I don’t think our communications around the number of people who have signed the pledge is misleading. As for whether we take more credit than is due for pledge donations, I want to flag two important ways we try to ensure we aren’t overestimating our impact (among others):  1. We do not take credit for donations not recorded on the platform unless we have evidence from our surveys that additional pledge donations occurred (see our recording coefficient). 2. We only take credit for pledge donations that our survey of pledgers indicates we are causally responsible for (see our counterfactuality coefficient). In this impact evaluation, we estimated that we caused 33% of pledge donations. If this is still your preference, you can resign from your pledge using this form. I hope I have understood your concerns, but please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
2
Vasco Grilo🔸
Hi Ramiro, Would you still be concerned if GWWC just reported the total recorded donations in $, and the number of pledges being fulfilled based on recorded donations? I agree the way they are reporting the number of pledgers should be updated, and I had expressed my concerns about this 14 months ago (I have added the email I sent them then to my previous comment). However, I do not think GWWC is taking undue credit in their cost-effectiveness analyses.

This should have way more attention than it's currently receiving

4
Charlie Harrison
I'm currently working on a paper which suggests 'scale norming' could lead to quite a large bias/underestimate of average national life satisfaction. Hope to post a version of this on the Forum soon.

Or: people care about relative income because: a) it entails more wealth (as capital gains accumulate faster than returns on work) which entails more power, like the possibility of funding intellectuals to say that inequality doesn't matter; and b) it signals status, or it is used to buy status-goods, such as buying a nice house in a rich neighborhood without fearing your neighbors wanting to sack it (since they might care about relative income, even if you don't)

Btw I just realized I can totally bite this bullet: I have lived in 4 cities in the last decad... (read more)

At least in this case, common sense might save thou a lot of time

Imagine someone receives a string of 95% of 111111... which is coming from a messenger funded by pro-Unity Inc., and when you point out that it might be biased because of its funding source, you hear the reply "oh but I only care about the message, and it's a sound string of 1's"

Don't you think a similar objection would apply to Caplan's "proof" that people don't move to poorer neighborhoods because something something externalities?

(Moreover, I just realized thata "realists say that people only care about relative wealth" is a remarkable strawman, and it's refutation does not entail that people barely care about relative income - and this is the first time I see an Economics professor mixing claims about wealth and income in the same argument)

2
Vasco Grilo🔸
Yes, I think a similar objection applies. However, I would still expect more people to move to neighbourhoods with a lower mean income if people cared a lot about their income relative to their neighbours. I believe people's behaviour is better explained by people caring much more about their income than their income relative to their neighbours.

Caplan says that Schooling is Mostly Signaling - Econlib
If I told him "since education in US is just about signaling, an American should move to a place where their degree + alma mater would be regarded as more valuable - e.g., a developing country, or a poorly educated area, etc.", d'you think he'd agree?

2
Vasco Grilo🔸
Hi Ramiro, I do not think Bryan would agree with that. Studying in the United States (US) means a higher chance of being employed relative to studying in a random country, but the US has higher salaries, which plays against leaving.

It reminded me this: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Wishes
 


Tbh, I barely care about what economists in Koch's pockets claim (something Caplan apparently doesn't consider worth denying)

2
Vasco Grilo🔸
Thanks for sharing, Ramiro! I overwhelmingly prefer to look into the arguments, and put very little weight into the funding source.
Answer by Ramiro-2
0
2

What about funding a project trying to end tax-deductible donors-advised funds? Things like DonorsTrust are what brought us here

2
Jason
It's a DAF, which makes grants based on donor recommendations to other tax-deductible charities. Since the charities to which it funnels money are themselves tax-deductible, shutting down the DAFs wouldn't prevent donors from funding the organizations you find problematic directly. And the First Amendment prevents us from denying tax-exempt status to charities because we find their message odious or threatening.

Nuka zaria: research if Chatgpt is quoting from a parallel universe
 

(Well, it's already the cruelest month in UK, right?)

My conjecture is that you cannot fully separate MA and AI safety / alignment - or worse, solve AI safety first and then ask AI to solve values for you. We should solve them together, as some sets of values will be incompatible w some approaches to safety, and some AI development pathways will make some sets of values inaccessible (e.g., I don't think that an egalitarian world for our descendants is a likely outcome w the current trend)

3
Ronen Bar
Yes I completely agree, Moral alignment and controllability/safety alignment are very interconnected and one effects the other

Great post, thanks.
Did your search for a new intervention include control / eradication of NWS (C. hominivorax)? It's an endemic parasite in French Guayane (actually, I suspect that's where Coquerel first identified it in XIX century), affecting wild and farmed animals alike (and killing at the very least 100 humans/year), any large scale policy would eventually depend on / benefit from French (and perhaps EU) support, and almost no one is working on that from a animal welfare / rights POV (except for Screwworm Free Future is hiring for a Director — EA For... (read more)

6
Keyvan Mostafavi
Yes, eradicating the New World screwworm was part of the initial 94 ideas we listed. This idea didn't make it to the second round because we have a preference for operating in France, and because navigating the Latin America context as French people seemed difficult. I find this idea very promising as it could reduce a huge amount of animal suffering. Although I was wondering how sure we are that a death caused by the screwworm is worse than the average death in nature for those animals.

Is Climate-sensitivity super-wrong?


Thomas Homer-Dixon on why James Hansen's latest climate findings matter




"The bottom line is startling: Hansen’s team argues that mainstream climate science, as reflected in the IPCC’s reports, underestimates climate sensitivity to CO2 by about 50 percent. Their research suggests that the “short-term”—century time scale—equilibrium warming from a doubling of CO2e should be 4.5 degrees C, not the standard estimate of 3 degrees.

The reason for this error, in the view of Hansen and his team, is that conventional climate science... (read more)

SBF was willing to bribe Trump w $5bi so he wouldn't run in 2024. That's not what I'd call "undervalue".

3
Ozzie Gooen
I think SBF was fairly unique in caring about this, and his empire collapsed before he did anything like this in that election. When I said "undervalue", I wasn't referring to SBF, given he hasn't been active in this time.  (Obvious flag that while I might have sympathized with some of SBF's positions, I very much disagree with many of his illegal and fraudulent actions) Looking back though, paying $5B for Trump to definitely not run/win seems like a great deal to me, though the act of paying him raises a lot of qualms I'd be uncomfortable with. 

thanks. seems to be way better than the new Mission Impossible plot. you could send it to Nature Futures: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03507-x
 

Non-opioid painkiller wins approval

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the non-opioid painkiller suzetrigine for short-term pain management. Suzetrigine is the first pain drug given a regulatory nod in more than 20 years that works through a brand-new mechanism, without the risks of addiction or sedation. Unlike opioids, the drug doesn’t act in the brain, instead blocking certain sodium channels in pain-sensing cells in the peripheral nervous system. When it comes to chronic pain — where the need for safer, non-opioid alternatives is most pres... (read more)

Also, how much do sexing strains in SIT facilities reduce the cost of SIT?

Probably can't cut costs by more than half, right? Assuming the sex ratio is 1:1, now you can double the production of flies with the same input, I guess?

Sorry if I am being unfair, but itseems to me a bit naïve to base all of your Structural Democratic Reforms project solely on election theory, and ignore other institutions that are extremely impactful, but more neglected by and less accountable to the wide public, such as Supreme Courts, Central Banks and regulatory authorities (and even Audit Institutions).

Before the Hamas's attack, Israel was in political turmoil because a sort of constitutional crisis between its Supreme Court and the government regarding the 2023 Israeli judicial reform. Current US Su... (read more)

And public choice theory, too - the kind of "neoliberal cynic legalistic" branch of mechanism design. No point in having a great voting system if your authorities can benefit themselves scot-free.
It's funny how EAs have been arguing about "improving institutional decision-making" for almost a decade (and even before that in LW) w/o reading the basic literature... personal story: I remeber I was fascinated with EY's Inadequate Equilibria (a wonderful book I recommend even more than HPMOR) and found it super original... but actually it wasn't nothing new once I discovered the literature in mechanism desing and, more recently, cyberneticists like S. Beer and H. Simon

I'd like to see an updated version of this - and, if possible, one that didn't end up being categorized as "personal blog post"

Let me share SBTi's requests for feeddback:

 

Financial Institutions Net-Zero (FINZ) Standard

 

Experts from the finance sector, academia, and civil society worldwide are invited to review and provide feedback on the Draft Financial Institutions Net-Zero (FINZ) Standard. The public consultation survey will be open until September 30.

 

The primary aims of this consultation survey are to gather input from external stakeholders on the FINZ Standard - Consultation Draft v0.1, with particular focus on:

  • The clarity
  • Specific approaches to:    
    • Ev
... (read more)

Thanks for the post. I suppose you'd agree that there's a good chance that, once Uncle Sam gets unstable, many other countries will follow suit.

I'm not sure the problem is "EA neglects this" instead of something more like "SBF funded political campaigns and considered bribing Trump to avoid his re-election and this resulted in terrible optics..." Maybe EAs and politics don't mix well?

From the report:

The experts we spoke to favored unilateral advocacy (targeting individual countries) over advocacy in multilateral organizations such as the UN. This was on the basis that domestic policy and priorities usually take precedence over international agreements, especially in a catastrophe.

I tend to agree, because there are many low-hanging fruits in in-country advocacy. However,  I wonder if some food security policies could face obstacles from WTO's Agreement on Agriculture, so that amending it could be highly effective.

5
Stan Pinsent
Good point. I looked at WTO agreements early in the research process and eventually decided that WTO advocacy was probably not, on the margin, the best way forward. Food stockholding I focused on the consequences of the AoA for food stockpiling (known as "stockholding"), the most urgent concern being that it may dissuade countries from stockholding as much as they otherwise would (as suggested by Adin Richards here). Although food reserves would never be big enough to get us through a full catastrophe, they would buy time for countries to adapt to the cooling shock. The feedback I got from someone with experience at the WTO since the 1990's was * The AoA probably isn't holding countries back from stockholding. It does not make any restrictions on how much a country can hold, only on how much a country can spend on subsidizing domestically-produced stocks [while technically true, a lot of authors certainly seem to believe that the AoA affects stockholding, eg. here]. * This AoA appears to be counterfactually reducing subsidies for only a handful of products in a few countries. India is the only country to have notified exceeding its limit, and only for rice. * The AoA seems intractable. The G33, a coalition of LMICs, have pushed for change with no success On the other hand, basic amendment to the AoA seems obviously needed (imho). The original agreement does not properly allow for inflation. It does not make adequate exceptions for very low-income countries (whose market share is so low that allowing them to subsidize farmers would not be very distortionary). Overall the WTO seems deadlocked at the moment and suffering a crisis of legitimacy. Tit-for-tat between US and China has led to a breakdown of trust in the organization. If the US was on-side for AoA amendment, it is possible that the other dissenting countries would fall in line. But it is not clear that the US can be influenced on this. The US is doing fine with the system as it currently is, and h

I call dibs on writing an April Fool's post to propose calling this pledge "effective tithe"

Before you comment in response to this post, I would urge you to assume that lawyers for the FTX Group will see your comments.

In that case, I suggest they consider taking a look at the Earning to Give part of 80000 hours website

1
Nathan Young
King

I have a slightly less rosy picture of this report. Let me illustrate it with some excerpts:

1. The second SIR [Serious Incident Report]

Following the opening of the inquiry, the trustees filed a second SIR on 12 February 2023 as they became aware of a historic safeguarding incident involving one of the former trustees prior to that individual’s appointment as a trustee of the charity.

From the Findings:

The trustees then reviewed and updated their safeguarding policies and procedures and whilst these revised policies and procedures were generally in accordanc

... (read more)
8
JoshuaBlake
My top line summary is: in several areas, EV were operating below the standard the commission would expect, but have rectified the issues to the commission's satisfaction.

Is this about OCB?

The timings are description line up very closely to the public record, so I'm almost certain it must be.

I agree that the full report gives a more rounded picture than my quick summary - but we're pleased with the final conclusions, and the improvements EV has made

Jason
20
12
0

I suspect today's reaction is influenced by the fact that ~all of this was seemingly already ~known and thus not really a negative update?

you're already a record-breaker in my heart

0
Vincent van der Holst
Thank you so much!

Time to cancel my Asterisk subscription?

 

 

So Asterisk dedicates a whole self-aggrandizing issue to California, leaves EV for Obelus (what is Obelus?), starts charging readers, and, worst of all, celebrates low prices for eggs and milk?

3
Toby Tremlett🔹
FWIW EV has been off-boarding its projects, so it isn't surprising that Asterisk is now nested under something else. I don't know anything about Obelus Inc. 
1
Linch
You should cancel if you think it's not worth the money. The other reasons seem worse.
4
Larks
If you previously liked the magazine these seem like relatively weak reasons to cancel it. 
1
EffectiveAdvocate🔸
Like Karthik, I don’t really understand what is so terrible about this, but I agree that the California edition is at least strange. It’s interesting how many of the ideas central to EA originate from California. While exploring the origin stories of these ideas is intriguing, I would be much more interested in an issue that explores ideas from far outside that comfort zone and see what they can teach us.  However, I’m not an editor and don’t think I’d make a good one either 😅 
7
Karthik Tadepalli
Obelus seems to be the organizational name under which Asterisk is registered - both the asterisk and the obelus are punctuation symbols so I highly doubt that Obelus exists separately from Asterisk. Charging readers is probably an attempt to be financially independent of EV, which is a worthy goal for all EA organizations and especially media organizations that may have good cause to criticize EV at some point. The eggs and milk quip is just a quip about their new prices; I don't understand what's offensive about it. The California issue is weird to me too. [Conflict note: writing an article for Asterisk now]

Anyone else consders  the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (application no. 53600/20) of the European Court of Human Rights a possibly useful for GCR litigation?

Elon Musk? So last year... 2024 is time for Trump scandals.
Let's buy some Truth shares and produce new scandals!

you can totally have scandals involving dead or imaginary people. So, definitely no.

2
Guy Raveh
Right? Also you can have a person turn on the scandal machine, which then creates more than one scandal associated with them.

I'm not sure where is the best place to share this, but I just received a message from GD that made think of Wenar's piece: John Cena warns us against giving cash with conditions | GiveDirectly (by Tyler Hall)
Ricky Stanicky is a comedy about three buddies who cover for their immature behavior by inventing a fictitious friend ‘Ricky’ as an alibi. [...]

When their families get suspicious, they hire a no-name actor (played by John Cena) to bring ‘Ricky’ to life, but an incredulous in-law grills Ricky about a specific Kenyan cash transfer charity he’d supposedl

... (read more)

As a civil servant from a developing country, I can say that those estimates mean almost nothing. I don't think they are well invested, and they are tiny in comparison to adaptation gaps
I think there's a huge problem of prioritization when it comes to adaptation investment - because developing countries seldom link infrastructure resilience to adaptation policies

Answer by Ramiro2
0
0

I think there's a relevant distinction to be made between field building (i.e., developing a new area of expertise to provide advice to decision-makers - think about the history of gerontology) and movement building (which makes me think of advocacy groups, free masons, etc.). Of course, many things lie in-between, such as neoliberals & Mont Pelerin Society.

2
jackva
Yeah, that's true, though in Luke's treatment both are discussed and described as roughly equal -- there's no indication given that either should be more promising on priors and, as you say, they will often overlap.

Thinking about this one year later, I realize that Global Catastrophic events are much like Carnival in Brazil: unlivable climatic conditions, public services are shut down, traffic becomes impossible, crowds of crazy people roam randomly through the streets... but without Samba and beaches, of course (or, in the case of Curitiba, without zombies selling you beer)

How consistent are "global risk reports"?

We know that the track record of pundits is terrible, but many international consultancy firms have been publishing annual "global risks reports" like the WEF's, where they list the main global risks (e.g. top 10) for a certain period (e.g., 2y). Well, I was wondering if someone has measured their consistency; I mean, I suppose that if you publish in 2018 a list of the top 10 risks for 2019 & 2020, you should expect many of the same risks to show up in your 2019 report (i.e., if you are a reliable predictor, ris... (read more)

3
Ian Turner
I guess any report must be considered on its own terms but I’ve been pretty down on this stuff as a category ever since I heard the Center for Strategic and International Studies was cheerleading the idea that there were WMDs in Iraq.

Let me briefly try to reply or clarify this:

I think there is a massive difference between one's best guess for the annual extinction risk[1] being 1 % or 10^-10 (in policy and elsewhere). I guess you were not being literal? In terms of risk of personal death, that would be the difference between a non-Sherpa first-timer climbing Mount Everest[2] (risky), and driving for 1 s[3] (not risky).

I did say that I'm not very concerned with the absolute values of precise point-estimates, and more interested in proportional changes and in relative prob... (read more)

2
Vasco Grilo🔸
Thanks for clarifying! I think you mean that the expected value of the future will not change much if one decreases the nearterm annual existential risk without decreasing the longterm annual existential risk.

Something that surprised me a bit, but that is unlikely to affect your analysis:

I used Correlates of War’s data on annual war deaths of combatants due to fighting, disease, and starvation. The dataset goes from 1816 to 2014, and excludes wars which caused less than 1 k deaths of combatants in a year.

Actually, I'm not sure if this dataset is taking into account average estimates of excess deaths in Congo Wars (1996-2003, 1.5 million - 5.4 million) - and I'd like to check how it takes into account Latin American Wars of the 19th century.

2
Vasco Grilo🔸
Thanks for the note, Ramiro! Global annual deaths of combatants from 1996 to 2003 were 59.8 k according to Correlates of War, whereas the death tolls you mention would imply annual deaths of 431 k (= (1.5 + 5.4)/2*10^6/(2003 - 1996 + 1)) for the Congo Wars alone. So it looks like the vast majority of deaths of the Congo Wars are being attributed to civilians. I agree the above will not matter for the conclusions of my analysis. Based on the 2 estimates above, global deaths of combatants were 13.9 % (= 59.8/431) of all deaths in the Congo Wars, which much less than my central estimate of 50 %. However, I also used a pessimistic fraction of 10 % for the deaths of combatants as a fraction of total deaths (for all years, not just those of the Congo Wars), and still got astronomically low extinction risk.

Thanks for the post. I really appreciate this type of modeling exercise.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and there are some reflections it might be proper to share here. In summary, I'm afraid a lot of effort in x-risks might be misplaced. Let me share some tentative thoughts on this:

a) TBH, I'm not very concerned with precise values of point-estimates for the probability of human extinction. Because  of anthropic bias, or the fact that this is necessarily a one-time event, the incredible values involved, and doubts about how to extrapolate ... (read more)

5
Mo Putera
Perhaps not a direct answer to your question, but this reminded me of the Metaculus Ragnarok series.
2
Vasco Grilo🔸
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Ramiro! On the one hand, I agree expected value estimates cannot be taken literally. On the other, I think there is a massive difference between one's best guess for the annual extinction risk[1] being 1 % or 10^-10 (in policy and elsewhere). I guess you were not being literal? In terms of risk of personal death, that would be the difference between a non-Sherpa first-timer climbing Mount Everest[2] (risky), and driving for 1 s[3] (not risky). It is worth noting one of the upshorts of the post I linked above is that priors are important. I see my post as an illustration that priors for extinction risk are quite low, such that inside view estimates should be heavily moderated. It may often not be desirable to prioritise based on point estimates, but there is a sense in which they are unavoidable. When one decides to prioritise A over B at the margin, one is implicitly relying on point estimates: "expected marginal cost-effectiveness of A" > "expected marginal cost-effectiveness of B". That makes a lot of sense if one is assessing interventions to decrease extinction risk. However, if the risk is sufficiently low, it will arguably be better to start relying on other metrics. So I think it is worth keeping track of the absolute risk for the purpose of cause prioritisation. Pre-mortems make sense. Yet, they also involve thinking about the causal chain. In contrast, my post takes an outside view approach without modelling the causal chain, which is also useful. Striking the right balance between inside and outside views is one of the Ten Commandments for Aspiring Superforecasters. I agree cascade effects are real, and that having a 2nd catastrophe conditional on 1 catastrophe will tend to be more likely than having the 1st catastrophe. Still, having 2 catastrophes will tend to be less likely than having 1, and I guess the risk of the 1st catastrophe will often be a good proxy for the overall risk. Relatedly, readers may want to ch

Thanks for this report. It'll be quite useful.
I'd like to share some critical remarks I had previously sent RCG by e-mail:

  1. Definition of “RCG”

<Los RCG se definen como aquellos con el potencial de infligir un daño grave al bienestar humano a escala global. > (p.2; cf. p. 6)

This definition might be too wide – it could include the global financial crisis of 2008, for instance. It is constrained, though, by the subsequent sentence: <Si bien se han identificado diversos riesgos que cumplen con esta definición, el presente trabajo se enfoca en ... (read more)

Opportunity for Austrians
Article by Seána Glennon: “In the coming week, thousands of households across Austria will receive an invitation to participate in a citizens’ assembly with a unique goal: to determine how to spend the €25 million fortune of a 31-year-old heiress, Marlene Engelhorn, who believes that the system that allowed her to inherit such a vast sum of money (tax free) is deeply flawed."

T20 Brasil | T20 BRASIL CALL FOR POLICY BRIEF ABSTRACTS: LET’S RETHINK THE WORLD
 

The T20 Brasil process will put forward policy recommendations to G20 officials involved in the Sherpa and Finance tracks in the form of a final communiqué and task forces recommendations.

To inform these documents, we are calling upon think tanks and research centres around the world – this invitation extends beyond G20 members – to build and/or reach out to their networks, share evidence, exchange ideas, and develop joint proposals for policy briefs. The latter should pu... (read more)

For me it's hard to believe that companies will spend much more with compliance thatn what they are already spending with marketing and offsets to greenwash their reputations. And when we implement carbon taxes / markets, they'll need to disclose that info anyway

Sorry for being contentious, but.... Cochrane is remarkably clever in his papers, but I fail to see cleverness here. For instance, one of his main rants is about SEC’s proposing that firms disclose their carbon footprint; it’d be financially irrelevant, right? However, there’s a strong consensus among economists and institutions on the need for higher carbon prices. So it’s expected that, in the long run, carbon intensive companies will pay more for their emissions; disclosing data on emissions is all about allowing investors to manage long-term financial ... (read more)

2
Larks
If it's a material risk risk, companies already have to disclose it as a risk factor. What makes this unusual is 1) it requires a very costly data gathering exercise 2) it opens companies up to very large legal risk about their precise methodology and 3) it is required of all companies, even if the risk is not material to them.  As an example, at least one of the economists in the poll you linked thought it would help investors make decisions, but was still a bad idea: It might be useful to consider an analogy with the opposite political valence. Many companies in the US employ, or deal with other companies who employ, immigrants, including illegal immigrants. This causes political risk; there may be changes to immigration rules, or an increase in enforcement and deportations, that could affect their operations. At the moment, companies for which this is material issue disclose it, generally using relatively high level language, and companies for whom it is not material do not. The equivalent of this SEC move would be if all companies had to report the exact number of immigrants they employed, broken down by visa category, national origin, and illegal status, for themselves, their contractors, their suppliers and their customers. This would help investors make decisions! But it would be extremely costly, and the motivation would clearly be political and an abuse of the SEC's remit.

Idea for free (feel free to use, abuse, steal): a tool to automatize donations + birthday messages. Imagine a tool that captures your contacts and their corresponding birthdays from Facebook; then, you will make (or schedule) one (or more) donations to a number of charities, and the tool will customize birthday messages with a card mentioning that you donated $ in their honor and send it on their corresponding birthdays.

For instance: imagine you use this tool today; it’ll then map all the birthdays of your acquaintances for the next year. Then you’ll selec... (read more)

Load more