Siao Si
Posts 11
Comments27
I'd think the article you're referencing (link) basically argues against considering "daode" to mean "morality" and vice-versa.
The abstract: "In contemporary Western moral philosophy literature that discusses the Chinese ethical tradition, it is a commonplace practice to use the Chinese term daode 道德 as a technical translation of the English term moral. The present study provides some empirical evidence showing a discrepancy between the terms moral and daode."
Hm, I think Hamish's estimate of the cost included a bunch of tinkering with the settings; I can see it going either way. Another thing I think is more important is flexibility to make code changes and iteratively improve - how do you feel notion would do with that? I'm curious to see what you managed to get on Notion if you're willing to talk through it with us.
(BTW, are you the Patrick Liu who participated in the Stampy hackathon this past weekend?)
I see you already volunteer on aisafety.info! From working on that project these are some areas I think could benefit from being made more accessible (on our platform or otherwise - we’re working on these but definitely could use the help + I would be really happy to see them worked on anywhere)
- The research agendas and strategies of various alignment orgs and independent researchers
- AI policy: The proposals that have been made and the content of active and forthcoming policy documents
- Forecasting: The predictions that have been made and the methods by which we’ve come to them
- Current models: What the most powerful models are doing and how
- I’ll come back and add more if/when I think of more
I realize these are categories instead of specific documents but there’s just so much to be worked on! These are purely my views, and I haven't run this past anyone else in the team, who I suspect have more thoughts. For anyone stumbling across this who’d like to help with the project but who isn’t familiar with it, we have a prioritized list of content we would like to cover on the site but don’t have yet.
Thanks for pointing this out! I've fixed it in this post and we'll look into checking it automatically
Oh I see, thanks! - I didn't realise this because the statement that appears after indicating you've been personally referred is: "Since you were referred to this position, the rest of the application is optional" which makes it sound like it wouldn't be optional if you weren't referred.
I just looked at the application for the role of content specialist for CEA, which seems to involve a lot of working on this forum.
I noticed that if one indicates they have been personally referred by someone 'involved in effective altruism', one is given the option to skip 'the rest of the application' - which seems like the majority of the substantive information one is asked to give.
This seems overtly nepotistic, and I can't think of a good reason for it - can anyone give one?
How many evaluators typically rate each grant application?