This post advocates for greater prioritization of global priorities research, including questions related to longtermism, because such research can increase the impact of the EA community.
The Positive recent progress section implies that research is thought of as traditional philosophical academic journal paper and similar writing and further suggests that innovative discourse happens predominantly within academia. This thinking could hinder progress within the GPR field.
The Implications of longtermism and Patient longtermism sections can be interpreted as seeking to gain popular attention as compared to inviting collaborative engagement of readers. This can discourage readers interested in helping others from engaging with the ideas presented in the piece.
The Relative neglectedness part makes a comparison of the recent growth of resources dedicated to GPR and AI safety in the EA community. While this can be a true statement, it does not imply that GPR should be prioritized: rather than the comparison of the increase in resources deployed in each field, the marginal value of additional GPR effort should be considered.
The Scale of the community part assumes that EA resources are always perfectly mobile and thus neglects the notion of suboptimal institutionalized thinking within EA due to GPR deprioritization at any earlier stages, which can have significant negative implications also outside of EA, due to the community leverage.
The Importance of ideas segment states limited interest of some academics in GPR research, while omitting a broader reflection on recent development in global re-prioritization.
The How might you contribute? section uses a language that connotes the author’s request that readers contribute by 1) identifying GPR topics, 2) asking others to conduct GPR, 3) applying for a junior role at a GPR research organization endorsed by 80,000 Hours, 4) researching the importance of a relatively unexplored issue, or/and 5) donating. Using a request language may hurt readers’ prioritization rationality and reduce their long-term engagement with the field.
Thus, this piece makes a sincere appeal but lacks robust arguments to support its thesis.
This post advocates for greater prioritization of global priorities research, including questions related to longtermism, because such research can increase the impact of the EA community.
The Positive recent progress section implies that research is thought of as traditional philosophical academic journal paper and similar writing and further suggests that innovative discourse happens predominantly within academia. This thinking could hinder progress within the GPR field.
The Implications of longtermism and Patient longtermism sections can be interpreted as seeking to gain popular attention as compared to inviting collaborative engagement of readers. This can discourage readers interested in helping others from engaging with the ideas presented in the piece.
The Relative neglectedness part makes a comparison of the recent growth of resources dedicated to GPR and AI safety in the EA community. While this can be a true statement, it does not imply that GPR should be prioritized: rather than the comparison of the increase in resources deployed in each field, the marginal value of additional GPR effort should be considered.
The Scale of the community part assumes that EA resources are always perfectly mobile and thus neglects the notion of suboptimal institutionalized thinking within EA due to GPR deprioritization at any earlier stages, which can have significant negative implications also outside of EA, due to the community leverage.
The Importance of ideas segment states limited interest of some academics in GPR research, while omitting a broader reflection on recent development in global re-prioritization.
The How might you contribute? section uses a language that connotes the author’s request that readers contribute by 1) identifying GPR topics, 2) asking others to conduct GPR, 3) applying for a junior role at a GPR research organization endorsed by 80,000 Hours, 4) researching the importance of a relatively unexplored issue, or/and 5) donating. Using a request language may hurt readers’ prioritization rationality and reduce their long-term engagement with the field.
Thus, this piece makes a sincere appeal but lacks robust arguments to support its thesis.