Currently, the online EA ecosystem doesn’t feel like a place full of exciting new ideas, in a way that’s attractive to smart and ambitious people
This may be partly related to the fact that EA is doing relatively little cause and cross-cause prioritisation these days (though, since we posted this, GPI has wound down and Forethought has spun up).
People may still be doing within-cause, intervention-level prioritisation (which is important), but this may be unlikely to generate new, exciting ideas, since it assumes causes, and works only within them, is often narrow and technical (e.g. comparing slaughter methods), and is often fundamentally unsystematic or inaccessible (e.g. how do I, a grantmaker, feel about these founders?).
I ran this through QURI’s RoastMyPost.org, and it gave a mixed but fairly positive assessment (something like 68/100). Full assessment here (multiple agents/tools).
The epistemic checker and the fact checker seem particularly useful.
The main limitations seem to be:
Strong claims and major recommendations without corresponding evidence and support
Vagueness/imprecise definition (this is a partially my own take, partially echoed by RoastMyPost – e.g., it’s hard for me to grok what these new cause areas are, some are very much shorthand.)
I meant to post this last week, and I meant to give a more detailed response, but I was overloaded with work and illness. Posting this response now in the belated spirit of amnesty week.
This may be partly related to the fact that EA is doing relatively little cause and cross-cause prioritisation these days (though, since we posted this, GPI has wound down and Forethought has spun up).
People may still be doing within-cause, intervention-level prioritisation (which is important), but this may be unlikely to generate new, exciting ideas, since it assumes causes, and works only within them, is often narrow and technical (e.g. comparing slaughter methods), and is often fundamentally unsystematic or inaccessible (e.g. how do I, a grantmaker, feel about these founders?).
I ran this through QURI’s RoastMyPost.org, and it gave a mixed but fairly positive assessment (something like 68/100).
Full assessment here (multiple agents/tools).
The epistemic checker and the fact checker seem particularly useful.
The main limitations seem to be:
Strong claims and major recommendations without corresponding evidence and support
Vagueness/imprecise definition (this is a partially my own take, partially echoed by RoastMyPost – e.g., it’s hard for me to grok what these new cause areas are, some are very much shorthand.)
I meant to post this last week, and I meant to give a more detailed response, but I was overloaded with work and illness. Posting this response now in the belated spirit of amnesty week.