willbradshaw

Comments

How are the EA Funds default allocations chosen?

Nice, thanks Peter.

I have now changed the title of the post to be that which you suggested. I wanted it to be a question, but I couldn’t find a way to add a picture to a test in a question. Im new to this forum. Sorry.

Seems like a good reason. :-)

How are the EA Funds default allocations chosen?

I have a few responses to this:

  1. This should probably be a question, not a post.
  2. The question in the title is completely different from the question in the post. A better title would be something like "How are the EA Funds default allocations chosen?"

Actually answering the question, I don't think there's any reason to assume that whichever EA Funds staff member selected the default allocation thinks that this is the theoretically optimal way to allocate resources – in fact I think that's very unlikely. So the real question is what higher-level method, if any, was being used to select that allocation.

I don't think anyone except a member of the appropriate team at CEA can answer that. Have you asked them?

EA Forum feature suggestion thread

Interesting. I'm used to two hyphens for an en dash and three for an em dash.

AMA or discuss my 80K podcast episode: Ben Garfinkel, FHI researcher

I personally would lean towards the "most AMAs" approach of having most dialogue be with the AMA-respondent. It's not quite "questions after a talk", since question-askers have much more capacity to respond and have a conversation, but I feel like it's more in that direction than, say, a random EA social. Maybe something like the vibe of a post-talk mingling session?

I think this is probably more important early in a comment tree than later. Directly trying to answer someone else's question seems odd/out-of-place to me, whereas chiming in 4 levels down seems less so. I think this mirrors how the "post-talk mingling" would work: if I was talking to a speaker at such an event, and I asked them a question, someone else answering before them would be odd/annoying – "sorry, I wasn't talking to you". Whereas someone else chiming in after a little back-and-forth would be much more natural.

Of course, you can have multiple parallel comment threads here, which alters things quite a bit. But that's the kind of vibe that feels natural to me, and Pablo's comment above suggests I'm not alone in this.

Concern, and hope

Thanks, Abraham. It's really valuable to get these perspectives, and it's helpful to get people discussing these issues under their real names where they feel they can. I agree that there is a lot of overlap between the impulses that lead people into EA and those that lead many people into SJ.

I'm too tired right now to respond to this in the depth and spirit it deserves – I'll try and do so tomorrow – so just wanted to flag that this is a positive and valuable contribution to the discussion. I hope any responses to it in the meantime are made in the same spirit.

Information hazards: a very simple typology

A mixture of conversations and shared Google Docs. Nothing publicly citable as far as I know.

Systemic change, global poverty eradication, and a career plan rethink: am I right?

Thanks Vaidehi, great comment. If those numbers are right then the drops in both absolute and relative poverty in both South Asia and Indonesia seem pretty amazing.

Max_Daniel's Shortform

Do you think it matters who's right?

I think it matters quite a lot when it comes to assessing where to go from here: in particular, how cautious and conservative to be, and how favourable towards untested radical change.

If things have gotten way better and are likely to continue to get way better in the foreseeable future, then we should probably broadly stick with what we're doing – some tinkering around the edges to fix obvious abuses, but no root-and-branch restructuring unless something goes obviously and profoundly wrong.

Whereas if things are failing to get better, or are actively getting worse, then it might be worth taking big risks in order to get out of the hole.

I've often had conversations with people to my left where they seem way too willing to smash stuff in the process of getting to deep systemic change, which is potentially sensible if you think we're in a very bad place and getting worse but madness if you think we're in an extremely unusually good place and getting better.

Load More