272Joined Jan 2020


Update on Amplify Creative Grants: We’ve been really impressed by the number of high-quality applications we’ve received already, so we are likely to spend the majority of the funds we have to disperse in this first round.

As such, if you have an idea for a creative media project that you want to start soon, it would be best for you to apply by Wednesday the 19th of October.

That said, Amplify is likely to continue to consider applications beyond this point, so it is still worth your time to apply with non-urgent projects, through the same link.

As always, email grants [at] with any questions. 

Thanks Ollie! Though- note the major edit I just made. I still expect that sharing with them may be useful, if they know of places to share the announcement that we may have missed. 

Yep- I was going to have a 'what we should do' section and then realised that I had nothing very helpful to say. Thanks for those resources, I'll check them out. 

Thanks for flagging- yes I have definitely taken more of the MacAskill-Ord-Greaves party line in this post. Personally, I'm pretty uncertain on total utilitarianism so this should reflect that a little more. 

Hi Finn, I'd be happy to help out with these (on recording voice especially, I don't think I can commit time for audio editing at the moment). I've already got a mic for my podcast (Samsung Q2U) so if that was good enough, I wouldn't need as much set-up time. 

Framing my proposal as "hiding criticism" is perhaps unduly emotive here. I think that it makes sense to be careful and purposive about what types of content you broadcast to a wider audience which is unlikely to do further research or read particularly critically. I agree with Aaron's comment further down the page where he says that the effect of Torres's piece is to make people feel "icky" about longtermism. Therefore to achieve the ends which I take as implicit in evelynciara's comment (counteract some of the effects of Torres's article and produce a piece of work which could be referenced on wikipedia), I think it makes more sense to just aim to write a fairer piece about longtermism, than to draw more attention to Torres's piece. I'm all for criticism of longtermism and I think such an article would be incomplete without including some, I just don't think Torres's piece offers usable criticism. 

Not sure how much to weight this, but perhaps it would be better to have a straightforwardly pro-longtermism piece in one of these outlets, rather than a response to Torres. If edited for Aeon or Current Affairs as a response piece this would need to offer detailed exposition of Torres's arguments, and might just result in getting more people to read the original. 

I don't know if either outlet publishes a "letter to the editor" style post. If they did, that might be a better short format which would mostly reach readers of Torres's article, rather than a full article which would likely just expand the reach of the original. 

great shout with the asterisks, normally italics is my go to but it isn't possible in titles. 

Thanks Stefan, I clarified the 'we' but let me know if there are other changes that could make it clearer. I guess I was treating it as a jumping off point for thinking about the trajectories of the field of Longtermist research/ interventions in the future more than a very specific forecasting question (hence the vagaries). But if that means people won't be as keen on answering I can shape it up a bit. 

Hi! I'm Toby. I do a bit of writing and podcasting but would love to do some more. I'm particularly flexible at the moment for more EA projects, so I'd be very interested in joining the slack. (The idea is that you would message me with a link right? I'm not very familiar with slack). 

Load More