Rhys (also from Roote) here. Agree with Brendon that there isn't too much literature evaluating the "efficacy of various governance models". Some links you may want to look into, Holden:(This is less about academic research and more about IRL experiments.)
Dig it! Juan Benet from Protocol Labs and Matt Goldenberg are also working on this. Ping 'em!
Link to an ongoing Twitter discussion with Rob Wiblin, Vitalik Buterin, etc. here: https://twitter.com/glenweyl/status/1163522777644748801
I like this style of thinking. A couple quick notes:
1. Various U.S. presidential candidates have proposals for "democracy dollars", which are similar to philanthropy vouchers, but scoped to political giving. AFAICT, they have a different macro goal as well: to decentralize campaign financing. See https://www.yang2020.com/policies/democracydollars/ and https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/4/18526808/kirsten-gillibrand-democracy-dollars-2020-campaign-finance-reform
2. I agree that non-politics can be systemic. See this post that expands on... (read more)
Woof! Thanks for noting this Stefan! As you say, cause neutrality is used in the exact opposite way (to denote that we select causes based on impartial estimates of impact, not that we are neutral about where another person gives their money/time). I've edited my post slightly to reflect this. Thanks!
Boom, thanks! Dig the push back here. I generally agree with Scott Alexander's comment at the bottom: "I don't think ethical offsetting is antithetical to EA. I think it's orthogonal to EA."
(Though I also believe there are some "macro systemic" reasons for believing that offsetting is a crucial piece to moving more folks to an EA-based non-accumulation mindset. More detailed explanation of this later!)
Awesome resource, thanks for the link! (Also, I had never heard of Pigouvian taxes before—thanks!)
Given your list, I'd group the "categories" of externalities into:
And, if I understand it correctly, it's tough for me to offset some of these. This is because:
Perfect, thanks! I agree with most of your points (and just writing them here for my own understanding/others):
I'll ping you as I get closer to a editable draft of my book, so we can ensure I'm painting an appropriate picture. Thanks again!
Hey Simon! Thanks writing up this paper. The final 1/3 is exactly what I was looking for!
Could you give us a bit more texture on why you think it's "best not to put this kind of number on risks"?
Thanks! Here are my other favorite bear/skeptical/reasonable takes:
Love this exercise (I read a non-fiction book a week, so I think about this a lot!). I'd definitely put an EA book in the top 5, but I think we get more differentiated advantage by adding non-EA books too. My list:
I'm interested in quantifying the impact of blockchain and cryptocurrency from a ITN perspective. My instinct is that the technology could be powerful from a "root cause incentive" perspective, from a "breaking game theory" perspective, and from a "change how money works" perspective. I'll have a more full post about this soon, but here's some of my initial thoughts on the subject:
Great question. https://gnosis.pm and https://augur.net are building decentralized prediction markets on the Ethereum blockchain. Their goal is to "match the global liquidity pool to the global knowledge pool."
I've asked them how they're thinking about hedgehogs to form a collective fox-y model (and then segmenting the data by hedgehog type).
But yeah, I think they will allow you to do what you want above: "Questions of the form: if intervention Y occurs what is the expected magnitude of outcome Z."
I'm super into this! I'd be happy to check out your rough sketch. A couple thoughts:
Nice link! I think there's worthwhile research to be done here to get a more textured ITN.
On Impact—Here's a small example of x-risk (nuclear threat coming from inside the White House): https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis.
On Neglectedness—Thus far it seems highly neglected, at least at a system-level. hifromtheotherside.com is one of the only projects I know in the space (but the founder is not contributing much time to it)
On Tractability—I have no clue. Many of these "bottom up"/individual-level sol... (read more)
Awesome. Thanks Richenda—I'm looking into Secular Student Alliance now!
Yep yep, happy to! A couple things come to mind:
This isn't a unique thought, but I just want to make sure the EA community knows about Gnosis and Augur, decentralized prediction markets built on Ethereum.
I definitely agree that information on these topics is ripe for aggregation/curation.
My instinct is to look to the VC/startup community for some insight here, specifically around uncertainty (they're in the business of "predicting/quantifying/derisking uncertain futures/projects"). Two quick examples:
Thanks for aggregating this information, Richenda! One quick bucket of thoughts around EA groups + universities:
One note on this: blockchain-based DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations) are a good way to decentralize a giving body (like EAFunds). Rhodri Davies has been doing good work in this space (on AI-led DAOs for effective altruism). See https://givingthought.libsyn.com/algorithms-and-effective-altruism or my recent overview of EA + Blockchain: https://medium.com/@RhysLindmark/creating-a-humanist-blockchain-future-2-effective-altruism-blockchain-833a260724ee