1) Which books? There should be easily a 100 books related to EA (more and less broadly).
2) Some of the books are thought stimulating (the value is readers’ contemplation about unanswered questions), some informative (present valuable info that is useful to problem solving), some directly motivational (get readers focus on an important problem), and some vaguely motivational (inspire people to do good by discussing other topics).
I think summaries could be counterproductive for vaguely motivational books but could be also improving otherwise readers’ experience , because if one enjoys reading and realizing that they can do good, they can feel better or worse about it than if they skip this step and go straight into reviewing an option of doing good effectively.
For directly motivational books, summaries should be the most valuable (people should be informed about important issues) but the summaries should be published only after various pressing issues are covered (for example, if only wild animal welfare books are summarized then people who do not want to read the entire text could focus on this area and make it so that AI safety has attention disproportionate to the marginal value/need).
Thought stimulating books could be actually discussed without (everyone) reading because that diversifies perspectives.
Summarizing info that helps solve problems can be valuable to anyone who is resolving the issues.
option of doing this on demand.
I think EA orgs would enjoy it if that helps them in what they do. Some people may be interested in having different people read books and then summarize evidence and reasoning on some questions. Then, one person/org can benefit from knowledge and thinking of multiple people and be thus more efficient.
1) Which books? There should be easily a 100 books related to EA (more and less broadly).
2) Some of the books are thought stimulating (the value is readers’ contemplation about unanswered questions), some informative (present valuable info that is useful to problem solving), some directly motivational (get readers focus on an important problem), and some vaguely motivational (inspire people to do good by discussing other topics).
I think summaries could be counterproductive for vaguely motivational books but could be also improving otherwise readers’ experience , because if one enjoys reading and realizing that they can do good, they can feel better or worse about it than if they skip this step and go straight into reviewing an option of doing good effectively.
For directly motivational books, summaries should be the most valuable (people should be informed about important issues) but the summaries should be published only after various pressing issues are covered (for example, if only wild animal welfare books are summarized then people who do not want to read the entire text could focus on this area and make it so that AI safety has attention disproportionate to the marginal value/need).
Thought stimulating books could be actually discussed without (everyone) reading because that diversifies perspectives.
Summarizing info that helps solve problems can be valuable to anyone who is resolving the issues.
I think EA orgs would enjoy it if that helps them in what they do. Some people may be interested in having different people read books and then summarize evidence and reasoning on some questions. Then, one person/org can benefit from knowledge and thinking of multiple people and be thus more efficient.