The new intro article is excellent. I appreciate all the work that must have gone into it. Reading with a critical eye, there were a few things I might consider changing. I’ll post each below as a reply to this so people can upvote/downvote agreement or disagreement.
Choosing careers that help tackle pressing problems, such as by using advice from 80,000 Hours, or by finding ways to use their existing skills to contribute to these problems.
This sentence doesn’t quite make sense to me, When I get to “such as”, I am expecting an example of a career to follow. Maybe ”...such as those recommended by 80,000 Hours...”
“or by finding ways to use their existing skills...” doesn’t seem to quite work either. Why isn’t someone who chooses a career based on 80k advice also using their existing skills?
Lastly, I think you mean ” to contribute to solutions to these problems”, obviously not contribute to the problems themselves :)
Some examples of resources that have inspired people to get involved in effective (but don’t necessarily represent its current form) include:
From the “What resources have inspired people to get involved with effective altruism in the past?” FAQ, I think the above is missing the word “altruism.” It seems like it should be ”...get involved in effective altruism (but don’t...”
You can apply effective altruism no matter how much you want to focus on doing good – what matters is that, no matter how much you want to give, your efforts are driven by the four values above, and you try to make your efforts as effective as possible.
Typically, this involves trying to identify big and neglected global problems, the most effective solutions to those problems, and ways you can contribute to those solutions, using whatever you’re willing to give. By doing this, it’s possible for anyone to do far more to help others.
The use of the word “give” in these two paragraphs makes me worry people will interpret it as exclusively giving money. In the first paragraph, you’ve also gotten a little far down the page from the four values by this point. Perhaps this could be simplified to ”...no matter how much you contribute, you try to make your efforts as effective as possible.”
And in the second paragraph,
″...using whatever resources (time, money, etc.) you are willing to give”
I think this is put very eloquently in the “What is the definition of effective altruism?” FAQ below “Effective altruism, defined in this way, doesn’t say anything about how much someone should give. What matters is that they use the time and money they want to give as effectively as possible.”
The scientific method is based on simple ideas – e.g. that you should test your beliefs – but it leads to a radically different picture of the world (e.g. quantum mechanics).
It’s not really clear what “different” refers to here. Different than what?
an entirely vegan burger that tastes like meat, and is now sold in Burger King.
I love that Impossible Burgers exist and that they reduce meat consumption. I even think they taste fine, but they do not taste much like meat to me. I am sure they do to some people, but I would say this is not a fact and should not be stated like it’s a fact. It might seem like a small point, but when I imagine being introduced to new ideas by an article like this, small details that seem wrong to me can really reduce how credible I find the rest of it. I think something as simple as “approaches the taste and texture of meat” would resolve my issue with it.
founded The Center for Human-Compatible AI at UC Berkeley. This research institute aims to develop a new paradigm of “human-compatible” AI development.
Repeating “human-compatible” feels a bit weird/redundant here.
Unable to govern beings with capabilities far greater than our own...
Referring to an AI system as a “being” might be a bit alienating or confusing to people coming to EA for the first time, and the background discussion/explanation seems a bit out of scope for an intro article.
...nothing to rule out a disease that’s more infectious than the omicron variant, but that’s as deadly as smallpox.
Minor point, but using omicron variant as an example might seem dated once we get to the next variant or two in 6 months or a year. Perhaps Measles would be a better choice?
Effective altruism was formalized by scholars at Oxford University...
My understanding is that EAs origins are a bit broader than just Oxford and this sort of gives the impression that they aren’t. It also might be off-putting to some, depending on their views of academia (though others might be impressed by it). The word “formalized” gives the impression that things are a bit more set in stone and feels a bit contradictory to the truthseeking/updating beliefs stuff.
The new intro article is excellent. I appreciate all the work that must have gone into it. Reading with a critical eye, there were a few things I might consider changing. I’ll post each below as a reply to this so people can upvote/downvote agreement or disagreement.
This sentence doesn’t quite make sense to me, When I get to “such as”, I am expecting an example of a career to follow. Maybe ”...such as those recommended by 80,000 Hours...”
“or by finding ways to use their existing skills...” doesn’t seem to quite work either. Why isn’t someone who chooses a career based on 80k advice also using their existing skills?
Lastly, I think you mean ” to contribute to solutions to these problems”, obviously not contribute to the problems themselves :)
From the “What resources have inspired people to get involved with effective altruism in the past?” FAQ, I think the above is missing the word “altruism.” It seems like it should be ”...get involved in effective altruism (but don’t...”
The use of the word “give” in these two paragraphs makes me worry people will interpret it as exclusively giving money. In the first paragraph, you’ve also gotten a little far down the page from the four values by this point. Perhaps this could be simplified to ”...no matter how much you contribute, you try to make your efforts as effective as possible.”
And in the second paragraph,
″...using whatever resources (time, money, etc.) you are willing to give”
I think this is put very eloquently in the “What is the definition of effective altruism?” FAQ below “Effective altruism, defined in this way, doesn’t say anything about how much someone should give. What matters is that they use the time and money they want to give as effectively as possible.”
This doesn’t seem like it should be a bullet point (maybe just a sentence that follows) since it is not a way people apply the ideas in their lives.
Would “using research from GiveWell or taking the Giving What We Can pledge.” make more sense? Does GWWC do their own charity research?
It’s not really clear what “different” refers to here. Different than what?
I love that Impossible Burgers exist and that they reduce meat consumption. I even think they taste fine, but they do not taste much like meat to me. I am sure they do to some people, but I would say this is not a fact and should not be stated like it’s a fact. It might seem like a small point, but when I imagine being introduced to new ideas by an article like this, small details that seem wrong to me can really reduce how credible I find the rest of it. I think something as simple as “approaches the taste and texture of meat” would resolve my issue with it.
Repeating “human-compatible” feels a bit weird/redundant here.
Referring to an AI system as a “being” might be a bit alienating or confusing to people coming to EA for the first time, and the background discussion/explanation seems a bit out of scope for an intro article.
Minor point, but using omicron variant as an example might seem dated once we get to the next variant or two in 6 months or a year. Perhaps Measles would be a better choice?
My understanding is that EAs origins are a bit broader than just Oxford and this sort of gives the impression that they aren’t. It also might be off-putting to some, depending on their views of academia (though others might be impressed by it). The word “formalized” gives the impression that things are a bit more set in stone and feels a bit contradictory to the truthseeking/updating beliefs stuff.