Toby Tremlett

Content Manager @ CEA
2607 karmaJoined Working (0-5 years)Oxford, UK



Hello! I'm Toby. I'm Content Manager at CEA. I work with the Online Team to make sure the Forum is a great place to discuss doing the most good we can. You'll see me posting a lot, authoring the EA Newsletter and curating Forum Digests, making moderator comments and decisions, and more. 

Before working at CEA, I studied Philosophy at the University of Warwick, and worked for a couple of years on a range of writing and editing projects within the EA space. Recently I helped run the Amplify Creative Grants program, to encourage more impactful podcasting and YouTube projects. You can find a bit of my own creative output on my blog, and my podcast feed.

How I can help others

Reach out to me if you're worried about your first post, want to double check Forum norms, or are confused or curious about anything relating to the EA Forum.


Topic contributions

It'll be up soon, we'll post about it or update this post. Just needs to be trimmed etc. Stay tuned!

Good Q- would you mind summarising the link? Singer won't have much time to respond to the questions so it'd make it more likely that he could answer well :)

Do you think there is a trade-off between finding the best ways to help people and making the best videos? If so, how do you navigate it?

PS- I thought this was more of a hard trade-off before seeing your GiveDirectly video. I was surprised at how great the video was at explaining a less obvious giving opportunity (e.g. harder to explain than "these people needed houses so we built them houses"). So overall I'm pretty optimistic that you can find a good equilibrium between good videos and good uses of charitable money. 

Makes sense Leo, thanks. I don't want to change anything very substantial about the banner after so many users have voted, but I'll bear this in mind for next time. 

Good point (I address similar concerns here). For the time being, personally I would treat a half agree as some percentage under 5%, and explain your vote in the discussion thread if you want to make sure that people know what you mean. 

Also, every other week seems prima facie a bit burdensome for un-interested users.
Additionally, I want top-down content to only be a part of the Forum. I wouldn't want to over-shepherd discussion and end up with less wide-ranging and good quality posts. 

Happy to explore other ways to integrate polls etc if people like them and they lead to good discussions though. 

A crux for me at the moment is whether we can shape debate weeks in a way which leads to deep rather than shallow engagement. If we were to run debate weeks more often, I'd (currently) want to see them causing people to change their mind, have useful conversations, etc... It's something I'll be looking closely at when we do a post-mortem on this debate week experiment. 

There have been a few valid critiques of the debate framing, so I'll make some points to respond to each of them. A general point before I start is that you should feel free to use the discussion thread to outline your opinion, and/or, your interpretation of the debate statement. I.e. "I strongly agree with the debate statement, because I think 5% of EA Funding over the next decade is the right amount to allocate to this cause area". 

1- @Jason  brings up the ambiguity of the term "unrestricted" in footnote 2. I was thinking of unrestricted funding as all funding which is being allocated according to (roughly) impartial consequentialist reasoning, i.e. (roughly) EA principles. I'm contrasting that to restricted funds, for example, funds from a foundation that supports aid charities which happen to be given to an EA aid charity. 

2- @finm  makes a very fair point in this comment: over what timescale are we allocating 5% of the EA funds? This seems like an oversight rather than an accidental ambiguity- if I were to write this again, I might have chosen the next decade, or the next year. Given that 340 users have already voted, I won't change something so substantial now, but again, feel free to clarify your vote in the discussion thread. 

3- @NickLaing  argues that 5% of funding might be too high a bar to simply be labelled an "EA priority". I think this is a good point, and maybe the more accurate phrasing would be "Top EA Priority", or the entire statement should have been relative, for example: "AI Welfare should be more of an EA priority" and the footnote could clarify this means that a strong agree = we should triple the funding and talent going into it. Again, I won't change the phrasing now because it doesn't seem fair for earlier voters, but I can see the case for this. 

Thanks for the feedback and meta-debate, very EA, keep it up!

Load more