This isn’t exactly a proposal for a new cause area, but I’ve felt that the current names of EA organizations are confusingly named. So I’m proposing some name-swaps:
Probably Good should now be called “80,000 hours”. Since 80,000 hours explicitly moved towards a more longtermist direction, it has abandoned some of its initial relationship to its name, and Probably Good seems to be picking some of that slack.
“80,000 hours should be renamed to “Center for Effective Altruism” (CEA). Although technically a subsidiary, 80,000 hours reaches more people than CEA, and produces more research. This change in name would reflect its de-facto leadership position in the EA community.
The Center for Effective Altruism should rebrand to “EA Infrastructure Fund”, per CEA’s strategical focus on events, local groups and the EA forum, and on providing infrastructure for community building more generally.
However, this leaves the “EA Infrastructure Fund” without a name. I think the main desiderata for a name is basically prestige, and so I suggest “Future of Humanity Institute”, which sounds suitably ominous. Further, the association with Oxford might lead more applicants to apply, and require a lower salary (since status and monetary compensation are fungible), making the fund more cost-effective.
Fortunately, the Global Priorities Institute (GPI) recently determined that helping factory farmed animals is the most pressing priority, and that we never cared that much about humans in the first place. This leaves a bunch of researchers at the Future of Humanity Institute and at the Global Priorities Institute, which recently disbanded, unemployed, but Animal Charity Evaluators is offering them paid junior researcher positions. To reflect its status as the indisputable global priority, Animal Charity Evaluators should consider changing their name to “Doing Good Better”.
To enable this last change and to avoid confusion, Doing Good Better would have to be put out of print.
I estimate that having better names only has a small or medium impact, but that tractability is sky-high. No comment on neglectedness.
This isn’t exactly a proposal for a new cause area, but I’ve felt that the current names of EA organizations are confusingly named. So I’m proposing some name-swaps:
Probably Good should now be called “80,000 hours”. Since 80,000 hours explicitly moved towards a more longtermist direction, it has abandoned some of its initial relationship to its name, and Probably Good seems to be picking some of that slack.
“80,000 hours should be renamed to “Center for Effective Altruism” (CEA). Although technically a subsidiary, 80,000 hours reaches more people than CEA, and produces more research. This change in name would reflect its de-facto leadership position in the EA community.
The Center for Effective Altruism should rebrand to “EA Infrastructure Fund”, per CEA’s strategical focus on events, local groups and the EA forum, and on providing infrastructure for community building more generally.
However, this leaves the “EA Infrastructure Fund” without a name. I think the main desiderata for a name is basically prestige, and so I suggest “Future of Humanity Institute”, which sounds suitably ominous. Further, the association with Oxford might lead more applicants to apply, and require a lower salary (since status and monetary compensation are fungible), making the fund more cost-effective.
Fortunately, the Global Priorities Institute (GPI) recently determined that helping factory farmed animals is the most pressing priority, and that we never cared that much about humans in the first place. This leaves a bunch of researchers at the Future of Humanity Institute and at the Global Priorities Institute, which recently disbanded, unemployed, but Animal Charity Evaluators is offering them paid junior researcher positions. To reflect its status as the indisputable global priority, Animal Charity Evaluators should consider changing their name to “Doing Good Better”.
To enable this last change and to avoid confusion, Doing Good Better would have to be put out of print.
I estimate that having better names only has a small or medium impact, but that tractability is sky-high. No comment on neglectedness.
What do you blokes think?
I think that QURI should be called Probably Good
Maybe, Probabilistically Good?
How about: Probability? Good!
I suggest that the names be reassigned using the Top Trading Cycles and Trains algorithm.
+1 makes sense.