I’m not sure where the figure of 78% supporting GCR came from. In the survey report, the authors say:
“far future, xrisk, and AI as one cluster...comes in third with 441″.
Is it possible you added two groups (eg AI and other x-risk) together? The groups weren’t independent, so they can’t be summed up without double counting.
Yes, they were very non-independent—IIRC one was close to being a subset of the other. I’ll let anyone who wants to dig up the precise numbers.
Also, I’d urge changing this sentence:
“according to a 2014 survey, about 71% of effective altruists were interested in supporting poverty-related causes, but almost 78% were interested in global catastrophic risk reduction (including AI risk)”
I believe the survey analysis team said they’d try discouraging people from making these sorts of claims. I’d suggest instead saying “about 71% in the survey sample”, or even better (and more usefully for your purposes) giving the absolute numbers, with a comment that EA is a small movement so these constitute a significant fraction.
Impressively thorough-looking piece though, I’m looking forwards to reading it! I think it’s extremely useful to develop this sort of FAQ which people can link to.
Thanks Bernadette and Tom! I’ve corrected it and made it say “survey sample.” I think the percentages are still easier to read than the absolute numbers, but no strong preference.
If we redefine metacharity to also include rationality and cause
prioritization, it takes the top slot (with 616 people advocating for at least one of the three).
This is not “about half”; it’s 616⁄813 ≈ 75%. But maybe I’m misinterpreting where these statistics are coming from?
(edit: It’s “about half” if you use 616/1146, but the 1146 figure includes more than just EAs. Maybe this was the error?)
I was referring the the numbers from the table (in the old version) and I didn’t add them up, so not half in total but half each. Due to the Bernadette’s and Tom’s corrections the whole paragraph has changed a bit anyway, but I’ve also added an “each of” in the hope that it’ll make that clear. And 813 is the total I used.
I’m not sure where the figure of 78% supporting GCR came from. In the survey report, the authors say: “far future, xrisk, and AI as one cluster...comes in third with 441″. Is it possible you added two groups (eg AI and other x-risk) together? The groups weren’t independent, so they can’t be summed up without double counting.
Yes, they were very non-independent—IIRC one was close to being a subset of the other. I’ll let anyone who wants to dig up the precise numbers.
Also, I’d urge changing this sentence:
“according to a 2014 survey, about 71% of effective altruists were interested in supporting poverty-related causes, but almost 78% were interested in global catastrophic risk reduction (including AI risk)”
I believe the survey analysis team said they’d try discouraging people from making these sorts of claims. I’d suggest instead saying “about 71% in the survey sample”, or even better (and more usefully for your purposes) giving the absolute numbers, with a comment that EA is a small movement so these constitute a significant fraction.
Impressively thorough-looking piece though, I’m looking forwards to reading it! I think it’s extremely useful to develop this sort of FAQ which people can link to.
Thanks Bernadette and Tom! I’ve corrected it and made it say “survey sample.” I think the percentages are still easier to read than the absolute numbers, but no strong preference.
I think Bernadette is correct. This should be fixed.
Also, immediately afterward it says:
But the figure in the results and analysis pdf says:
This is not “about half”; it’s 616⁄813 ≈ 75%. But maybe I’m misinterpreting where these statistics are coming from?
(edit: It’s “about half” if you use 616/1146, but the 1146 figure includes more than just EAs. Maybe this was the error?)
I was referring the the numbers from the table (in the old version) and I didn’t add them up, so not half in total but half each. Due to the Bernadette’s and Tom’s corrections the whole paragraph has changed a bit anyway, but I’ve also added an “each of” in the hope that it’ll make that clear. And 813 is the total I used.