also a bunch of forecasting orgs — Manifold, Metaculus, Good Judgement Project, Hypermind, etc
I don’t have such a great sense of what actually goes on at an EAGx Virtual. Can you describe what the experience of an attendee is?
great essay, thanks for writing + posting!
this was a great listen, thanks alex!
Will this be recorded? I'd love to watch!
your data on manifold is wrong. importantly: (a) manifold is a for-profit company, and (b) they've actually published all of their finances (here). they've raised ~$4.2 million from investors, and ~$1.4 million from grants.
@Miri would love to see this corrected!
(1) where do you think forecasting has its best use-cases? where do you think forecasting doesn't help, or could hurt?
interested in your answer both as the co-CEO of an organization making important decisions, and an avid forecaster yourself.
(2) what are RP's plans with the Special Projects Program?
sorry about that, i didn’t mean to come off as hostile!
i’m legitimately wondering about both questions (conditional on your answer to the first). i’ll try again, hopefully with less hostile language:
2a) if so, cool! what’s your take? why do you think it’d be good?
2b) if not, i’m don’t quite understand what your goal was in posting this — i’m sure that you have a valid and valuable one, i just don’t want to assume.
did my rephrasing help? again, i’m so sorry to have come off as hostile in my previous comment. apologies!
Is this a proposal? If so, what value do you think there'd be in a news style EA podcast? If not, what's the purpose of this post?
The "Retrospective grant evaluations of longtermist projects" idea seems like something that would work really well in conjunction with an impact market, like Manifund. That — retroactive evaluations — must be done extremely well for impact markets to function.
Since this could potentially be a really difficult/expensive process, randomized conditional prediction markets could also help (full explanation here). Here's an example scheme I cooked up:
Subsidize prediction markets on all of the following:
Then, randomly pick one project (say, Project G) to retroactively evaluate, and fund the retroactive evaluation of Project G.
For all the other projects' markets, refund all of the investors and, to quote DYNOMIGHT, "use the SWEET PREDICTIVE KNOWLEDGE ... for STAGGERING SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS and MAXIMAL STATUS ENHANCEMENT."
Obviously, the amount of impact would need to be metricized in some way. Again obviously, this is an incredibly difficult problem that I'm handwaving away.
The one idea that comes to mind is evaluating n projects and ranking their relative impact, where n is a proper subset of the number of total projects greater than 1. Then, change the questions to "Conditional on Project A/B/C/etc being retroactively evaluated, will it be ranked highest?" That avoids actually putting a number on it, but it comes with its own host of problems