The Fund Future could run debates on these issues with high-level debaters (ie. World Champions or finalists) receiving significant compensation to take part. One format which would be particularly exciting would involve prominent academics giving the opening speeches for both sides and debaters taking the debate from there (for example, imagine Bostrom and Peter Singer debating how much we should focus on x-risks from AI vs. the present day). The debates would be recorded and prominently advertised on social media to relevant people. This would allow EA to engage and recruit people from the debating community.
Risks: Debating is focused on persuading people rather than reaching the truth.
I am inherently suspicious of paid seminars and would personally downgrade the credibility of any ideas I heard in a paid seminar (even if I went to get the money!)
Would you feel the same way about a conference you were paid a fee for speaking at?
One way of averting this could be to give participants an amount of money to allocate to a charity of their choice, instead of paying them (like on celebrity game shows).
If I’m paid to speak, that’s not suspicious; if I’m paid to listen (in any way), that’s suspicious.
Edit: Actually now that I work for government, being paid to speak is a little suspicious, and I am required to decline and report paid speaking invitations! Because it’s an easy cover for bribery. But in general I don’t think it’s suspicious.
Ok, yes in my proposal I say “it should be made clear that the fee is equivalent to a “speakers fee” and people shouldn’t feel obliged to “tow the party line”, but rather speak their opinions freely.” There would be some listening involved too though. I also say “In addition to (or in place of) the fee, there could be prestige incentives like having a celebrity (or someone highly respected/venerated by the particular group) on the panel or moderating, or hosting it at a famous/prestigious venue”. But maybe this would also arouse suspicion.
Sponsoring Debates on Future Fund Issues
Effective Altruism
The Fund Future could run debates on these issues with high-level debaters (ie. World Champions or finalists) receiving significant compensation to take part. One format which would be particularly exciting would involve prominent academics giving the opening speeches for both sides and debaters taking the debate from there (for example, imagine Bostrom and Peter Singer debating how much we should focus on x-risks from AI vs. the present day). The debates would be recorded and prominently advertised on social media to relevant people. This would allow EA to engage and recruit people from the debating community.
Risks: Debating is focused on persuading people rather than reaching the truth.
See also: introduce important people to the most important ideas by way of having seminars they are paid a “speaker’s fee” to attend (more).
I am inherently suspicious of paid seminars and would personally downgrade the credibility of any ideas I heard in a paid seminar (even if I went to get the money!)
Would you feel the same way about a conference you were paid a fee for speaking at?
One way of averting this could be to give participants an amount of money to allocate to a charity of their choice, instead of paying them (like on celebrity game shows).
If I’m paid to speak, that’s not suspicious; if I’m paid to listen (in any way), that’s suspicious.
Edit: Actually now that I work for government, being paid to speak is a little suspicious, and I am required to decline and report paid speaking invitations! Because it’s an easy cover for bribery. But in general I don’t think it’s suspicious.
Ok, yes in my proposal I say “it should be made clear that the fee is equivalent to a “speakers fee” and people shouldn’t feel obliged to “tow the party line”, but rather speak their opinions freely.” There would be some listening involved too though. I also say “In addition to (or in place of) the fee, there could be prestige incentives like having a celebrity (or someone highly respected/venerated by the particular group) on the panel or moderating, or hosting it at a famous/prestigious venue”. But maybe this would also arouse suspicion.