Training for Good recently announced Red Team Challenge, a programme that calls small teams together to “red team” important ideas within effective altruism. This programme provides training in “red teaming” best practices and then pairs small teams of 2-4 people together to critique a particular claim and publish the results.
We are looking for the best ideas to “red team” and want to pay $100 to our ‘top’ answer and $50 to our second and third top pick.
Constraints
It should be possible to reach a tangible result for relatively inexperienced researchers within a total time frame of ~50-60 hours or less of research, including a write up (divided between 2-4 team members)
The red teaming question needs to be:
Precisely defined with a clear goal and scope
One sentence long
Feel free to provide a short explanation of up to 100 words if the question itself is not fully self-explanatory or if you want to provide some additional context.
Related to effective altruism in some way
How to participate
We’d like you to leave your answer to the question as a comment to this post or by messaging us your answer using the Forum messaging system.
If you have questions or want to clarify something, please ask it in a comment to this post.
We don’t want other users discussing other people’s answers, so we will moderate away those comments. You may, however, upvote or downvote comments as per normal Forum usage.
We will end the competition on March 28 2022
How we decide who wins
We will ultimately pick who we give the $100 prize to solely on our own opinion of which one we find most useful for our intended goals. The same goes for the second and third prize.
We might find that none of the answers are what we wanted (likely because we under-specified what we want). In that case, we will offer only $10 to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best. My fragile guess is that there is a 30% chance of this happening.
We will DM the winners on prize closing. We might also comment publicly who won on this post, but we’ll check in with you first.
Examples
“Make the best case why this recommendation of charity X should not convince a potential donor to donate”
“Scrutinize this career profile on X. Why might it turn out to be misleading /counterproductive /unhelpful for a young aspiring EA?”
“Why might one not believe in the arguments for -
EA university groups promoting effective giving?”
hits-based giving being the most impactful approach to philanthropy at the current margin?”
$100 bounty for the best ideas to red team
Training for Good recently announced Red Team Challenge, a programme that calls small teams together to “red team” important ideas within effective altruism. This programme provides training in “red teaming” best practices and then pairs small teams of 2-4 people together to critique a particular claim and publish the results.
We are looking for the best ideas to “red team” and want to pay $100 to our ‘top’ answer and $50 to our second and third top pick.
Constraints
It should be possible to reach a tangible result for relatively inexperienced researchers within a total time frame of ~50-60 hours or less of research, including a write up (divided between 2-4 team members)
The red teaming question needs to be:
Precisely defined with a clear goal and scope
One sentence long
Feel free to provide a short explanation of up to 100 words if the question itself is not fully self-explanatory or if you want to provide some additional context.
Related to effective altruism in some way
How to participate
We’d like you to leave your answer to the question as a comment to this post or by messaging us your answer using the Forum messaging system.
If you have questions or want to clarify something, please ask it in a comment to this post.
We don’t want other users discussing other people’s answers, so we will moderate away those comments. You may, however, upvote or downvote comments as per normal Forum usage.
We will end the competition on March 28 2022
How we decide who wins
We will ultimately pick who we give the $100 prize to solely on our own opinion of which one we find most useful for our intended goals. The same goes for the second and third prize.
We might find that none of the answers are what we wanted (likely because we under-specified what we want). In that case, we will offer only $10 to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best. My fragile guess is that there is a 30% chance of this happening.
We will DM the winners on prize closing. We might also comment publicly who won on this post, but we’ll check in with you first.
Examples
“Make the best case why this recommendation of charity X should not convince a potential donor to donate”
“Scrutinize this career profile on X. Why might it turn out to be misleading /counterproductive /unhelpful for a young aspiring EA?”
“Why might one not believe in the arguments for -
EA university groups promoting effective giving?”
hits-based giving being the most impactful approach to philanthropy at the current margin?”
insects being considered moral patients?”