One possible “fun” implication of following this line of thought to its extreme conclusion would be that we should strive to stay alive and improve science to the point at which we are able to fully destroy the universe (maybe by purposefully paperclipping, or instigating vacuum decay?). Idk what to do with this thought, just think it’s interesting.
Thanks for the post—It was really amazing talking with you at the conference :)
We already know that we can create net positive lives for individuals
Do we know this? Thomas Ligotti would argue that even most well-off humans live in suffering, and it’s only through self-delusion that we think otherwise (not that I fully agree with him, but his case is surprisingly strong)
If you could push a button and all life in the universe would immediately, painlessly, and permanently halt, would you push it?
I think it’s okay to come off as a bit insulting in the name of better feedback, especially when you’re unlikely to be working with them long-term.
my best guess is that more time delving into specific grants will only rarely actually change the final funding decision in practice
Has anyone actually tested this? It might be worthwhile to record your initial impressions on a set number of grants, then deliberately spend x amount of time researching them further, and calculating the ratio of how often further research makes you change your mind.
I would strongly support doing this—I have strong roots in the artistic world, and there are many extremely talented artists online that I think could potentially be of value to EA.
Fixing the Ozone Layer should provide a whole host of important insights here.
Love this newsletter, thanks for making it :)